• 7 Posts
  • 323 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • I have a whole schpiel I could get into about it, but I’m busy so the TL;DR is that the whole point of a computer is its programmability – its ability to solve novel, bespoke problems that are unique to a single user’s needs. That means you’re not actually “computer literate” unless you can program, or at least pipe together some console commands or figure out a novel workflow in a collection of GUI apps or whatever. It’s not about touch-typing or rote memorization of specific functions in common apps; it’s about developing general-purpose problem-solving skills. Those are valuable for everyone, not just professional software engineers.

    Plus, knowing at least a little bit about how computers work is increasingly crucial in terms of understanding things like, say, the limitations of LLMs. That, I hope you can agree, is important for much the same reasons media literacy is.








  • ITT: people misunderstanding the issue being ruled on (or rather, not being ruled on by letting the lower court decision stand).

    If he had applied for copyright over the image generated using “AI” as a tool, it (edit: probably2) would have been granted, with him listed as the human author. But that’s not what he wanted. He’s apparently Hell-bent on trying to get the work registered in the name of the “AI” system itself as the author, to so that he can claim that the government recognized the “AI” as a sentient being that can own property hold a copyright1 on its own behalf.

    This is not the broad ruling against AI slop copyrightability that people think it is. It’s a ruling against “AI” personhood.

    (1 Copyright isn’t a property right, BTW)

    (2 He explicitly claimed he gave no creative contribution and that the work was created completely autonomously, and the court’s ruling included excluding that from being copyrightable. It is if he hadn’t done that – if he had claimed he had directed it via prompts or whatever – that I think they would have granted the copyright to him as the human author. It turns out that he changed his mind and did make that argument on appeal, but the court explicitly ignored and did not rule on it because it wasn’t raised in his initial complaint.)