Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Who owns the code if you built it with AI?

    Someone else!

    All they have to do is show it's close enough to code that was swallowed during training.

    Songwriters have been successfully sued for many decades for creating songs that are too close to songs that they probably heard.

    Once this line of reasoning gets applied to code, all hell will break loose.

    by zephen
  • Ultimately, the current copyright debates and the search for a boundary between “AI-generated” and “non-AI-generated” content are nothing more than a farce aimed at forcibly prolonging the life of *the vested interests (power structures) of an era when value lay in the “physical, manual labor of writing code”* into the AI era. Essential creativity and intellectual value reside in “design (architecture and specification definitions),” and if the design is sound, the code is merely the inevitable, optimized result of that design. As long as we remain fixated on indistinguishable boundaries or establish rules based on the futile self-reporting of “where humans made changes,” the law will continue to be completely left behind by the evolution of our times.
    by ErystelaThevale
  • "Is all of your organization's code free and open source, with no paid tier and nothing sold?"

    This question, which pushed my stuff into some corporate route, seems a bit incorrect as it lumps three things together "open source" and "no paid tier" and "nothing sold". Shouldn't those be three separate questions?

    by ddxv
  • Even assuming that AI code can't be copyrighted by the person running the AI (seems like a stretch), the company just needs to prove that someone, at some point, made a direct modification to the code not through the AI. It only takes one drop of copyright to make it a copyrighted work.
    by jujube3
  • And if I use an effect in photoshop, do I own the resulting image?
    by dingaling911
  • AI = No author is so bloody reductionist.

    The copyright ruling was about prompting without modification. The second you modify the result significantly by hand, the ruling doesn't apply. It also had a huge carve out for any future LLM that was more deterministic, which might apply to people with huge skill and other md files to tram in AI. It just hasnt been tested.

    These armchair copyright lawyers need to launch a lawsuit and stick their money where their mouth is instead of creating dumb clickbait nonsense.

    by protocolture
  • Makes sense to me. AI models are trained on (as large of a subset as possible of) the sum of human knowledge, so their outputs should belong to humanity as a whole.

    Really so should all creative works, on the same basis of all creative expression being the product of the society and civilization which fundamentally and inescapably influenced the creator — and they would belong to humanity as a whole, if it wasn't for intellectual property systems demanding the removal of ideas from the commons.

    by yellowapple
  • This page tries to make the case the AI generated code is not copyrightable. But the US Copyright Office's guidelines very strongly indicate the opposite, and certainly doesn't rule out AI Code being copyrightable:

    While assistive uses that enhance human expression do not limit copyright protection, uses where an AI system makes expressive choices require further analysis. This distinction depends on how the system is being used, not on its inherent characteristics

    However it also makes this point:

    The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output

    but further:

    a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship

    and

    Similarly, the inclusion of elements of AI-generated content in a larger human-authored work does not affect the copyrightability of the larger human-authored work as a whole. For example, a film that includes AI-generated special effects or background artwork is copyrightable, even if the AI effects and artwork separately are not

    Note that this isn't settled law though.

    Further, note that the failure to register copyright on AI generated images seems mostly because the person attempting this is trying to register it as owned by the AI not a human.

    See https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

    by nl

Explore Birbla archives