421–430 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.
That's interesting but how is anyone supposed to prove it? They would have to get their hands on your prompts.
Unless you are running a local model, your prompts are almost certainly logged by your inference provider, and would only be a subpoena away?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets hire humans as pAIrrots? They see it, they rearrange it, they rename variables and then they "authored" it. What a job- to start for as junior, but if you understand whats happening, you may augment the AIs code by giving "feedback" with enough time.
Free water but not electricity? I'll just hook up a generator to the shower... These sorts of simplistic loopholes rarely work. Imagine if you could get copyright for the linux kernel by just rearranging it and renaming a few variables.
This is the same shape as the image cases. Zarya of the Dawn already settled it for Midjourney output: human-written elements were protected, AI-generated images were not. The character design didn't get copyright even though the human picked, prompted, and curated. Code isn't different. Prompting Claude to produce a function is closer to prompting Midjourney to produce a frame than to writing the function yourself.…
It does not have to be substantial transformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also perfectly reasonable to say it's ok for a program or machine to do the same thing as a human. This has been the basis for the technological revolution since the dawn of technology.
It's legal and perfectly reasonable for a human being to combine organic fuels with oxygen from the air to create energy and CO2. Any law restricting that would be the worst form of tyranny. It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions. (Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)
Is there any line past which it becomes unreasonable?
> It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.
If the machines were a replacement for a damaged respiratory system in a human would it reasonable?
What about if the machine were being used by a human to do something else that was important?
Where is the line where it becomes reasonable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it means that the appellate decision will retain precedence, no? Wouldn’t losing precedence be the primary legal effect of overturning that decision? All case law that hasn’t touched the Supreme Court could theoretically be challenged, but most of it isn’t, and it’s considered the law until it isn’t anymore, right? How would this be any different?
The decision is binding only within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So it’s not correct to say “because SCOTUS denied cert, Thaler is now binding national copyright law.” Practically speaking, it is binding on the US Copyright office (one of the parties in the case) in CADC. And that’s important. But copyright litigation happens all across the country, while this ruling only directly co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> meaningful human authorship How is this defined? Is my code review "meaningful" ? Are my amendments and edits to the generated code "human authorship" ?
From the article: > Specifying an objective to the model is not enough. Directing how the work is constructed is what counts.
This particular AI-ism really encapsulates what annoys me about some AI-isms. I don't mind the delves and the em-dashes that just give away the AI source of what otherwise might be good text. But these structural pieces just feel fundamentally not for the reader. Part of it is blatant pick-me language for the human feedback ("hey look you wanted plain language I did that") and part of it feels like it's just helping the future token stream (thinking-like tokens polluting the actual text).
The not-this-but-that, the sycophancy, the symbolizing-vague-significance, they all have this flavor of serving a process that's no longer there as I now need to read it. It gives a similar sickening feeling to the one I get seeing something designed by committee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still find the idea that "learning" from code is "stealing" kind of ridiculous.
Yes I guess there's also no such thing as stealing in torrents since the computer "learns" the data and returns it in a transcoded fashion so it's technically not a reproduction. Yes LLMs can reproduce passages from copyrighted works verbatim but that's only because it "learned" it and it's just telling you what it "knows". The mental calisthenics required to justify this stuff must be exhausting.
What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.