Hacker News Reader

Comment by circuit10 | Hacker News Reader

I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)

View on HN

Never mind that.

If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?

AI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result.

a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.

If your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?

because they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium.

I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.

The original argument was that AI works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are deterministic, i.e. are just an algorithmic transformation lacking in creativity.

that doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here

"The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner."

you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable.

the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.

> human review or testing

Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested

I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work

That would be authorship, no?

It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true

Reply on news.ycombinator.com