• lauha@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 days ago

    Remember, AI cannot hold a copyright. That AI art you created? No you didn’t, AI did and it’s basically public domain.

    • neidu4@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      Well, its “skill” was built on public domain or via piracy, so its result should be public domain too.

      Hell, my interpretation of the “derivative works” clause of GPL stipulates that all llm and genai products should also be gpl.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        01·
        5 days ago

        Hell, my interpretation of the “derivative works” clause of GPL stipulates that all llm and genai products should also be gpl.

        …an interpretation broad enough to cover that would also mean that anyone who has ever seen GPL code before would only ever be able to write GPL code ever again. The idea of which I imagine would give Richard Stallman an erection you could see from space,

        • arudesalad@piefed.caEnglish
          0·
          5 days ago

          That’s close to the actual intention. Most MIT rewrites of GPL projects don’t accept contributions from people familiar with the original codebase.

          • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            6 hours ago

            Think more extreme than that, as in “if you’ve ever seen any GPL code whatsoever, it has in some small way impacted your understanding of code and now all code you write forevermore must be GPL” rather than just the codebase of the thing you are re-implementing because that’s the kind of breadth you’d have to apply to the “derivative works” clause in GPL to argue all gen AI code must be GPL because the training data contains some GPL code.