(05-06-2023, 01:35 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Sure, but you still have to tweak the AI to get a work that's desirable. Like, I could say write me a story about a boy, and it could write a story. I could copyright that, but the question is whether or not it's a good story/idea. Most times, when I'm playing around with AI, it's good at simulating emails, but bad at being artistic. Getting something that is good takes work still, so I don't know why you can't copyright your AI produced ideas. What difference does it make? Just first to market problems that resolve themselves over time.

I guess I just don't see why you can't copyright something you have the AI produce.

The main problem is that the ai doesn't provide anything original, it provides a recombinant version of whatever creative content  you feed into it, and that doesn't even touch the ethical problem of using other people's work to develop the algorithm to start with. You can't make a machine that outputs material in the voice of someone else without making use of a lot of someone else's material. Was all of that really done with those creators expressed consent?

If one produced all of that creative content their self then why not just create the content directly from the start? If one didn't produce the creative content and are, instead, using someone else's creative content then all they've done is operated a very advanced plagiarism machine to output a derivative work.

I could see granting an ai operator copyright on ai generated material that only trained on inputs of that person's work, but in the case of derivative work it makes more sense to serve the person running the ai with a lawsuit than to reward them. Of course ai generated plagiarism will probably be very hard to detect, so it makes more sense to just disallow all ai content for copyright.

---