Comment on U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you want to call yourself an artist, do the work yourself, Stephen.
You limpdick, no talent ass clown.
Comment on U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear dispute over copyrights for AI-generated material
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you want to call yourself an artist, do the work yourself, Stephen.
You limpdick, no talent ass clown.
msfroh@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
My understanding is that he did do the work of creating the AI. This isn’t just someone using ChatGPT.
In this case, it’s not that he’s trying to claim copyright for himself based on coming up with a prompt. He’s spent years applying for patents and copyrights with the AI listed as the creator.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
He can copyright his software then?
XLE@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Is there any literature that actually says DABUS exists? Everything I see online is talking about this significance of claiming it made something, not how (or if) it did.
DABUS stands for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience,” which begs skepticism.
msfroh@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yeah… Checking his website at imagination-engines.com/founder.htm, he certainly seems like an “interesting” character.
XLE@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Well this is quite the rabbit hole.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200219183352/http://initsimage.org/
grue@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
In other words, it’s not that he as the human operating the “AI” is trying to claim copyright in his own name, it’s that he’s trying to set a precedent where the “AI” can hold copyright in its own name.
He’s trying to pretend that his glorified pile of statistics is sentient, and get it legally recognized as such. 🤡
msfroh@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Exactly.
Most of the comments in this thread are accusing him of trying to take credit for the work of a machine that’s just imitating other work. It’s the FuckAI echo chamber and people who didn’t actually read the article.
In this case, it’s more like he’s claiming to have created a genuinely creative being that deserves rights previously reserved for humans (like copyrights and patents).
It’s a completely different (and IMO, much weirder) story than people are assuming.
Rekall_Incorporated@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
It sounds like he has way too much money and time on his hands.
WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 3 weeks ago
AI is legally the same as a printing press. It’s not the guy that designs and runs the press that owns what comes out of it. And what goes into the AI is large volumes of other people’s work, turned into confetti and glued together into something not quite new.