Games

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] Krompus@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 child)

Good meme, just doesn't fit this specific scenario perfectly.

But that's kind of the point, isn't it? The code cuck forfeits authorship.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I mean usage of the meme, not the meme itself.

parent

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -3 points 4 days ago (8 children)

It's their project that was based on existing game.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (7 children)

They did nothing aside from the instructions. So their project is setting the agent, not the result of the agent.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[+] REDACTED@infosec.pub -9 points 4 days ago (6 children)

So when I use Photoshop that's filled with AI tools or After Effects with AI 3D tracking to accelerate my project, it's not my project because the work was made easier because of modern tools?

It's a yes or no question.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

It's a false equivalence, and so clear I can't believe you don't know it.

parent

[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Prompting an AI agent is not the same as using photoshop. It is more comparable to commissioning something (art, code, writing, etc). You don't have authorship, the LLM does in this case. That doesn't mean you can't own the piece that gets created, that's what commissioning is, you just can't claim you authored it. Though whether you or the company that runs the model owns the output is still not a settled question legally speaking.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 child)

No, this is pretty settled. Generative outputs such as these are not owned by anyone. As you said, the AI "authored" it similarly to a commissioned work and cannot hold a copyright so there was nothing to assign to the prompt writer.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

Suppose the user could claim ownership of the prompt used to create the work; unless that was also created using an AI.

parent

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub -4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Last I checked, AI creations cannot be copyrighted if human work was not involved (no human - no copyrights). This means that if you had to do something by yourself, even compiling, then there was human. While for AI generated images it's quite clear you will not own it, but software tends to be more advanced, ChatGPT doesn't just send you an exe file, you have to put it together by yourself.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] RumRunningDevil@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 days ago

Again this is the difference between authorship and ownership. While I'm no lawyer, to my understanding you must demonstrate that what you did was genuinely transformative to claim authorship.

You use compiling the code an LLM gives you as an example of this. Does a person running gentoo have the ability to claim authorship of all the software on their machine because they compiled it?

I think the only thing you can certainly claim authorship over is the prompt(s) that were used to generate the output.

Another good example of this is compilers. How often do you see people claim authorship of the assembly generated as an intermediary step of the gcc?