so 3 courts + US Copyright Office say you cannot copyright nor patent anything made primarily with LLMs because automata aren't human.

[oliver_schafeld@mastodon.online]

Next step: Vibe-code an operating system and an office suite.

[exits, humming, "the Pinky, the Pinky, and the Brain" ]

[tkissing@mastodon.social]

@not2b @blogdiva Nobody is tracking which line of code is generated by AI vs written by a human. So any changes made since a company adopted AI as a coding tool are at least at risk here.

[elduvelle@neuromatch.social]

@DrSaucy that doesn't explain what you didn't like in my answer, but ok

[marjolica@social.linux.pizza]

@SpaceLifeForm @blogdiva well since these days MS seems to be updating the Windows codebase using vibe coding then none of it is copyright anyway.

[javerous@social.sourcemac.com]

@blogdiva @baldur It's hard to make the distinction here

> The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them.

I wonder how judges are going to judge that… (I guess it's a bit the Ship of Theseus problem ?)

[javerous@social.sourcemac.com]

@blogdiva @baldur (i.e. what proportion of the "invention" or the "art" needs to be from a human being to be considered an human creation vs. an AI “creation”)

[baldur@toot.cafe]

@javerous @blogdiva Considering the judges only come into it when there's a legal issue—something that leads to a challenge in court—they don't need to answer this question in the abstract but tackle it based on the evidence brought before them by the lawyers arguing the case.

So, things like emails, process documentation, marketing, etc. They don't need to address it as a philosophical question

[wyatt_h_knott@vermont.masto.host]

@blogdiva is it mansplaining or manregioning? why not both!?

@DarkRedman

[elduvelle@neuromatch.social]

@petealexharris yeah, obviously the fact that the LLM's output comes from untraceable and sometimes stolen data is a problem.
My main point is that the SCOTUS considering that the output of an LLM is somehow the "creation" of software, instead of considering it the creation of a group of humans, is silly and wrong. It's as if they fell in the trap of considering as a separate entity as if it was some kind of actual artificial intelligence.. which it really is not.

Software doesn't "create" anything, and the output of a software like photoshop is not different from the output of software like a LLM, it's still created by humans in the first place. The only difference is that we can't easily track the origin of the LLM's output.

@jaystephens

[someonetellmetosleep@chitter.xyz]

@abmurrow @blogdiva (I'm not a lawyer, but) SCOTUS is primarily an appellate court, they take 99% of cases on appeal, at their discretion. Declining to take the cases means that the lower (circuit) courts' rulings stand, and remain as binding precedent in those circuits. There's multiple reasons not to take an appeal and to my knowledge they don't publish explanations for declining to take appeals, but probably they either think the lower court is very likely right, and/or they think it's just not important enough to give it some of the limited space on their docket.

Technically no court case is *truly* final as sufficiently motivated lawyers and judges can get even decades-old settled precedent overturned, but it's not likely to here unless Congress passes a significantly reworked copyright act as the current statute seems pretty clear about the whole "human creativity" thing (demonstrated by several courts agreeing) even if the language is a little more legalistic than that.

[dascandy@infosec.exchange]

@oliver_schafeld 5% actual work, 35% interoperability crap, 60% getting people to actually switch to it.