TheTechnician27

I clarified this a bit in a follow-up comment, but my first comment was simplifying for the sake of countering:

[it’s not in the public domain] because the actual human work that went into creating it was done by the owner of the AI Model and whatever they trained on.

Their claim that the copyright for AI-generated works belongs to the model creator and the authors of the training material – and is never in the public domain – is patent, easily disprovable nonsense.

Yes, I understand it’s more nuanced than what I said. No, it’s not nuanced in their favor. No, I’m not diving into that with a pathological liar (see their other comments) when it’s immaterial to my rebuttal of their bullshit claim. I guess you just didn’t read the claim I was addressing?

Oh, sorry, I said that totally wrong: I meant that I really appreciate your first comment and that it’s not worth your time to reply to their bad-faith follow-up comment.

The answer is that it’s messy and that I’m not qualified to say where the line is (nor, I think, is anyone yet). The generated parts are not copyrightable, but you can still have a valid copyright by bringing together things that aren’t individually copyrightable. For example, if I make a manga where Snow White fights Steamboat Willie, I’ve taken two public domain elements and used them to create a copyrightable work.

So it’s not like the usage of AI inherently makes a project uncopyrightable unless the entire thing or most of it was just spat out of a machine. Where’s the line on this? Nobody (definitely not me, but probably nobody) really knows.

As for courts ever finding out, how this affects trade secret policy… Dunno? I’m sure a Microsoft employee couldn’t release it publicly, because as you said, it’d probably violate an NDA. If there were some civil case, the source may come out during discovery and could maybe be analysed programmatically or by an expert. You would probably subpoena the employee(s) who wrote the software and ask them to testify. This is just spitballing, though, over something that’s probably inconsequential, because the end product is prooooobably still copyrightable.

This kind of reminds me of the blurry line we have in FOSS, where everyone retains the copyright to their individual work. But if push comes to shove, how much does there need to be for it to be copyrightable? Where does it stop being a boilerplate for loop and start being creative expression?

Just as a sanity check: the person you’re responding to is a serial troll and what I can only describe as intellectually dishonest at best or a pathological liar at worst. They make up whatever they want and will never concede that the fucking nonsense they just dreamed up five seconds ago based on nothing is wrong in the face of conclusive proof otherwise.

You shouldn’t waste your time responding to this cretin.

Technology is an extremely vague word in this context.

Dude, just shut the fuck up and own up to what you were doing. You’re acting like a snivelly little child. I’ve seen you around a couple times before, and it’s like all you exist to do on Lemmy is make up and spread misinformation.

You’re just making shit up. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has affirmed that AI-generated work is in the public domain. Put up or shut up.

Edit: Additionally, the US Copyright Office writes:

As the agency overseeing the copyright registration system, the [Copyright] Office has extensive experience in evaluating works submitted for registration that contain human authorship combined with uncopyrightable material, including material generated by or with the assistance of technology.

Seriously, I have way more sympathy for people who get tickets in places like NYC. More crowded, more chaotic, more rules. It happens.

By ticket 38, though, I’m at least 20 tickets past the point where I’ve decided I’m not competent enough and started just taking a mix of cycling and public transit.

This sounds like a fake website that Kitboga would make up for scambaiting.

A Data breach?

Good thing it’s pretty easy to break windows.

I didn’t know what a meth den smells like until I saw this picture of Kid Rock.

“Too bad [some shit I just made up with no empirical evidence].”

sitting in a wall-e chair chugging Alfredo sauce

This is an unfair and libelous depiction of my utopia where I sit in a Wall-E chair chugging Alfredo sauce with, I’ll thank you to remember, fettuccine noodles mixed in.

I want a world where I can use those things without doing irreparable damage to my body and mind. I can fantasize about them when divorced from the practicalities.

I do want the Wall-E chairs, but I would never actually accept them. It’s like how I want a 20-liter bucket of fettuccine Alfredo, but I would never accept and eat one.

AutoZone fucked my dad. (It’s the first retail estblishment that came to mind.)

Well except “no” because the shortening is just an added bonus from the main benefit which is to make it generally more accurate. “My PC” unfixes it.

Yeah, this is on the level of those conspiracy theories that insist the Illuminati or whatever are constantly leaving enciphered clues about their existence in plain sight for no practical reason except so that Dave can post about it online after a long day at AutoZone.

As an added bonus, “This PC” is more concise in terms of character count and syllables – which actually is pertinent for something that might get namedropped a million times a day.

When you die using the abacus, you die in real life.

Reject operating system.

Return to abacus.