On 09/05/2026 15:07, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Wol,
There's a lot of those things around - they're called brains ...
And when “brains” break copyright, the humans attached to them are often sued.
;)
:-) And very often they're not, too.
Or the plaintiff didn't realise their own work, too, was an infringement...
I haven't yet heard of the humans attached to an AI being sued yet, but
I don't see why they shouldn't be. All I've heard of so far, though, is
"unclean hands" tricking AIs into producing copyrighted works.
(The other difficulty with suing the people behind AIs is they're almost
never real people, they're legal fictions aka companies. What's new?)
The rest of your post is, unfortunately, full of logical fallacies I don’t have
time to unravel for you.
Well, I think that just about sums up Copyright Law, not just my
argument, then.
For the record, I'm pretty much against AI for a whole bunch of reasons,
not least because I think humans *often* do a much better job (which is
why I don't use it at work, apart from one instance so far "what is
wrong with my code?").
But none of what I think is wrong about AI boils down to copyright. Just
like humans, AIs can read, "learn", and write (which may or may not be
copyrightable, which may or may not infringe).
The two big problems with AI as I see it are humans create, AIs
hallucinate (although sometimes it's hard to tell the difference :-),
and many of the people behind it don't give a shit about the grief
they're causing so long as they can make a buck or two - what's new there...
Cheers,
Wol
