Comment by throwup238
5 months ago
IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved, it gets a lot more complicated and rests on whether the human's contribution was substantial enough to make it copyrightable under their person.
A fun exercise: When Supreme Court has not ruled on an open legal question of interest, let's ask AI what would be a likely ruling by Supreme Court.
I think SCOTUS might in fact use AI to get a set of possible interpretations of the law, before they come up with their decision. AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.
> AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.
This is what lawyers do, in their briefs and oral arguments before the court.
True. But if I was a judge I might want to consult AI to get a "neutral" opinion.
3 replies →