So by this logic my auto complete function before Ai also wrote 50% of my code and is not made by me, because I didn't type it.
What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.
What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.
I'd like to hear more nuance with regards to this line of reasoning. Can you conceive of a model that contains highly non-trivial representations of IP owned by others than yourself? Can you conceive that you might "order" the model to "produce" that IP? What happens then?
Try this both for "open source code" as the IP, and "the novel I wrote", and "latest Hollywood movie". The model does not have to be a real model currently available. It's just a thought experiment.
Try also to elaborate on the sliding scale between "an AI model" and "a compression system".
If you are instructed by your professor to write an application, do you own the copyright or the professor?
Suddenly, you think you own the copyright again. In fact, in every case, you think you own the copyright. Because of your feelings. That's a common opinion here on HN too. You don't have this opinion by any logical stance. Nor by any legal doctrine.
The fact is: Copyright law applies to human authors. AI is not a human.
Example,
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items/VisualStudioExptT...
Pretty sure it depends on the license the open source project uses. I dont think it's too troublesome if the autocomplete was truly only taken from open source projects, but it wouldn't surprise me if most closed source projects are also weighted into these models...