I always assumed Obie knew what he was doing and purposely saved him from the draft.

I’d argue art and open source code are different.

Open source code I or a machine should be able to learn from.

Public art I suppose doesn’t have a license attached to it. But if I learned to paint by studying other paintings for years - am I as guilty as the computer in your mind?

(To be clear - I don’t have an answer. I find the topic interesting and I don’t firmly believe anything here yet. I know Reddit is full of trolls and bots and the like so please know I enjoy reading your replies. Thank you.)

From a legal perspective I have to wonder what is the practical difference.

I guess from an abstract I have to wonder what the actual difference is.

It depends on the type of machine learning employed but in some respects, in the abstract, I don’t see much of a difference.

If I look at a lm OSS project and see a clever way a function was handled and then I use that method later - not the whole code, just the method - some would say that’s OK and others would say I’d be violating the OSS license.

This is an interesting case.

If a person studied open source code for years and then sat down and wrote a new program - would there be a problem if methods and code from open source applications could be found in there? That person didn’t, in this thought experiment, copy and paste code.

I would say no. So I wouldn’t think AI written code would be any different.

But if the answer is yes to the thought experiment than I would think AI would be the same way.

In other words let’s take the A(rtificial) out of the equation and just focus on the I(nteligence)

That’s where 80s and 90s true crime headed.

There are way too many -port towns in the middle of the country

Now I’m going to have to map all cities that are just prefixes and suffixes.

Boro. Ville. City.

Absolutely!