Fascinating talk.

According to the U.S. copyright office and Library of Congress, copyrighted works require a 'human' element: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

If art generated by AI can not be copyrighted, it may well extend to AI-generated code. If so, the implications could be pretty far-reaching.

The one, practical use-case of AI that has found 'product market fit' so far has been using AI for coding. Companies are encouraging it. Developers (including experienced ones) are starting to use more of it. But if it turns out none of the generated output can be copyrighted, then you lose all the commercial users who are the revenue sources for all these tools and companies.

This talk feels like it's touching on a pretty important topic.

Some highlights from this talk: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/issues/413#issuecomment-4105667974 Quote: "Obvious, this is a copyright infringement."

I’ve written and started using this policy:

https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/

Feel free to use it as is or adapt it as needed in your projects, or propose it to other open source projects. It’s got clear definitions of what is not allowed, so it should help eliminate any confusion.