Comment by circuit10
5 months ago
I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)
Never mind that.
If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?
AI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result.
a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.
If your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?
3 replies →
> human review or testing
Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested
I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work
That would be authorship, no?
1 reply →