• petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s a weird gray area. Nobody really knows where the limit is.

    This is a “no.” If you can’t just say yes, that’s a no, buddy.

    If I ask AI how to solve something but write the exact same code myself, is it mine?

    You know, colleges figured this one out: it’s called “plagiarism.”

    • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      It’s not me saying it, it’s the lawyers. The jury is quite literally out own where the copyright lies on AI generated content. The only definite verdict has been that the AI itself isn’t it.

      But whether it’s the one who created the model, prompted the model or the ones whose data was used to teach the model 🤷🏻‍♂️ Wibbly wobbly timey wimey

      I get regular briefings about this at work, because we have really good lawyers who actually read contracts of the services we use. And have banned multiple ones due to … creative copyright clauses in their contracts.

      As for your “generated code is plagiarism” argument, do you have any precedents on that because I’d be interested in reading the verdicts? If true it’s a massive game changer for many industries and open so fucking many companies to lawsuits.

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Mate, you were asked if code that was written for you was in fact your code and you’re talking about copyright. You’re off in the woods. You are so deep in the poisonous bog, I don’t think it’s possible to pull you out.

        I think you get regular briefings at work on how to be, like, a business narcissist. Much like Tommy Tallarico, the inventor of music in video games.