Now as an employee my ip belongs to my employer, but I am paid for this.
A robot couldn't enter into a contract without 1) being paid (consideration) or 2) the intention to create a contract. Therefore if robots are to assign copyright they are going to need training about contracts.
In the US, there are three factors that govern whether or not someone is an employee. These are:
> Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work.
> Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants.
> Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee’s payment.
Looking at those factors, it is really hard to argue that an AI is not an employee, as far as US law is concerned.
An AI is just a computer program. It’s an intangible asset. Any IP it generates was the work of the AI programmer, or perhaps also the operator who provides it with input and instructions on how to process it.
It's not currently understood that the result of compiling code implies a claim to copyright or derivative works of any resulting compiler output, which is GP's point.
Actually, there's an argument that, even if GCC and its support libraries did not have the compiler exception clause, then there still would be no GPL "infection" of compiled code. License to use a software program implicitly carries with it a right to make any necessary copies that are functionally required, even if the copies would otherwise be infringing. So the compiler inserting copies of itself into your program would enable you to distribute those copies with your program without any further agreement (i.e., licenses) required, so long as you had legitimate license to the compiler itself.
I would consider the robot to be a kind of pencil or typewriter.
A robot duck that can sit on a nest, make duck sounds and get food for the babies is still a robot, not a duck. Even punting in the whole consciousness debate, I think this example is easier because we generally think of ducks as simply living to reproduce and if a robot isn't organically reproducing and passing genetic material onto it's offspring, it's missing a huge part of what it is to be a duck.
Human level AI just got a lot easier to create.
A series of if/else blocks is not a "robot", or a legal person in any sense, any more than a paintbrush or a saxophone is.
Look at all the AI-driven visual art we're seeing happen. Copyright goes to the artist who set up the system and then selected the work, because that's the actual creative activity.
Creators have always used tools. The tool isn't what gets copyright, no matter how elaborate the tools. Once the tools have consciousness, drive, and self-determination, we might think otherwise. But that's not where we are today.