Technology

37693 readers

315 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 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?