But maybe someone else has experience to share there
put differently, if you put a random person infront of whatever model you used (say, a 50yo receptionist at a pharmacy in india), they would not have been able to create that, because they would have lacked the motivation, idea, background knowledge, taste, etc to create such a thing.
Legal questions of authorship are going to have to be established in terms of doctrines like SSO [0] and AFC [1]. Currently the incredibly sparse caselaw around this has yet to involve such non-literal notions of copyright.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction–filtration–compari...
I sure hope my boss doesn't think he built my work! He'd probably get fired pretty quickly during on call!
Most managers do though?
But that's not the same as me being needed to be on a call with integration teams and having to run the call. It's just a layer of abstraction for management. I own the creation side of the product.
Who created it is still me.
Your boss is a human.
This is a computer program running on your PC.
I hope you can see the difference.
Absurd logic. The AI built the website.
Lol, yeah I'd wager AI tooling skills are less relevant than knowing your way around a shell. It doesn't help that all of the AI tooling has event more churn than js libraries and package management systems!
I think there's probably some value in understanding how LLMs work, but beyond that it's the same boring skills that matter the most... Critical thinking, design chops, attention to detail, perseverance, etc.
Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.
How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film.
Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator.
And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.
By which I mean it puts the llm in the role of actor and such… people practicing an art. It seems harder to make a case that the llm is actually making creative decisions rather than aping a synthesis of past human decisions and expressions of taste, strictly, at every turn.
Though I guess it’s all “shades of grey”. I never felt like I was contributing a ton when I was essentially wrapping a large, capable library that some smarter person or people made, either.
Tangentially… remember back when we used to see headlines like “12 year old made a web browser!” and we all thought, “No. No they didn’t.”
It all feels a little like that, again.
llms are not human.
For example, of his 1500 spot paintings, he only actually made 5 of them.
It's not uncommon at all for artists to work this way.
None would claim they chiseled anything, if it was 3D printed. They may claim they designed something.