Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

slashinvestor t1_ixegkm8 wrote

I actually think this case is legitimate and it highlights an interesting difference between humans and AI.

Humans learn a programming language by learning the basics of the programming language and the applying it. This means humans learn from ground zero. They will copy code, but they will do so knowing what kind of code they want.

An AI, in this context, does not learn the basics. It learns by looking at other people's code. Meaning if there is an esoteric functionality like a special identifier in the loop then the AI will not know about it.

This is a HUGE difference because what it means is that when an AI does come up with code it is based on somebody's code. It is not based on the thought process -> need loop -> need loop with basic structure -> oh here is one similar to what I need.

Thus I agree with the lawsuit entirely because the AI is a big grand copying machine, and not a thinking machine.

11

RudeRepair5616 t1_ixfvh03 wrote

It is important to understand that copyright does not protect ideas but only particular expressions of ideas ('works'). As such, it is not copyright infringement when subsequent authors independently 'create' existing works.

6

slashinvestor t1_ixgzi82 wrote

This lawsuit is going to define that. And as such you are simply making my point.

If an AI machine learns specific code, and uses that specific code to create another piece of code then that is copyright infringement. That is the entire point of the argument.

A human on the other hand uses judgement and abstraction, AI does not.

The AI used is a grand neural network and as such it is incapable of original thought. That type of network is not physically capable of expressing unique out of the box thought that it did not learn. We humans call them brain farts.

2