A rule against copyrighting AI art will be unworkable.

I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  •  Paragone   ( @Paragone@beehaw.org ) 
    1•1 year ago

    There is an error that many in the dispute are making…

    Imagine that BORG-AI is an ai that was trained ONLY on GPL2 program-code…

    Imagine that you use it to fill-in some functions in your codebase…

    What sort of copyright-status should be on those??

    I say they should be GPL2, and they should be considered derivative of the ENTIRE training-data-set.

    That doesn’t mean I think that the BORG-AI should be a copyright holder, though!

    I’m saying that there should be a NEW category, between uncopyrighted & copyrighted, and that the training-sets need to be segregated by license, so that derivatives CAN know what their legal licensing-status is.

    GPL2, GPL3, BSD, LGPL2, whatever… it needs to be consistent within the training-data-set, so that the derivative of THAT module/expert can be having the same license, see?