Hacker News Reader

Comment by _verandaguy | Hacker News Reader

I think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)

View on HN

> you own what your bot writes

Kinda weird that this is everyone's attitude while the copyright lawyers are saying the opposite. Total liability without any actual ownership.

"own" in the sense of "be responsible for the consequences". Not in the sense of "be able to grant reproduction rights".

That's how I interpreted it. I just wanted to highlight what I see as a discrepancy. They're putting all the liability on us because it's a tool with no intent of its own while simultaneously saying prompts don't count as creativity because it's not a tool like a photographic camera it's just a casino where you roll the dice. Quite self-contradictory in my opinion.

There's plenty of tools that can cause harm without having to be creative to use them.

The copyright office’s guidance is that prompts are covered by copyright, it is the output of an LLM that one cannot claim ownership of.

GP's phrasing was not precise, but I think most people understood it was liability ownership and not copyright. Ownership with respect to copyright and ownership with respect to legal liability are two completely different concepts.

That's correct. What I meant was that if my bot writes defective code for whatever reason, I am responsible for that (though conversely, if I get more done because of the bot, anthropic gets the praise).

That's hypocritical if you believe fairness is intended, but if you believe protecting rich people and hurting poor people is intended then the contradiction is entirely consistent with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com