OK, this thread is now exhausted and off-topic. No more posts please. Mark List Moderator
At 15:50 on 09 May 2026, Wol wrote: > 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 -- Mark Knoop
