The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner.

If you just copyright it normally with yourself as the author, seems like it would be fine to copyright whatever bs you want?

I think that this means that a single prompt alone does not convey copyright. But if you had spent many hours before the prompt fine tuning the model, or much effort after the prompt shaping the result with further prompts, it could be.

I disagree with this approach because I've seen how much creativity and effort some people can put into slowly evolving a single elaborate prompt. AI can be used as another kind of brush. A prompt can be a masterpiece.

Initialize an algorithm to point your camera at the street and describe those bytes in words and you are no longer the author a perpetual stream of data.

In a world where slapping an overlay of someone looking incredulous over someone else's video is considered "adding substantive commentary" by every major video sharing platform, I don't even try to understand copyright law at all. It is way over my head.

What if I use Photoshop and context-aware fill a cloud in? Is that AI-generated or human-generated art?

Companies responsible for several billion dollars worth of software written over the past ~36 months would really like to know the answer to that one.

Through this isn't true for AI assisted art.

And the gray area is very wide and very legal unclear (gray area between human art with AI assistance (e.g. "AI"/transformer architecture based line smoothing or color calibration) and AI art with human touch added to it).

It doesn't even promote the progress of science and useful arts anymore, and in fact when mixed with our current form of capitalism, it hinders it.

It's like the advent of photography after painting. It was dismissed as an art form for a long time:

- https://antique-photography.com/when-was-photography-conside...

- https://medium.com/@aaronhertzmann/how-photography-became-an... (from 2018!)

Similarly, right now AI art is widely dismissed as "just prompts." But having tried many times to generate images via prompts, it's very hard to get what's in my head to show up in the result. I ended up spending much more time editing the images than creating them... but, I could do that with much simpler tools, without learning advanced tools like Photoshop.

In a couple of instances though, the AI has blown me away by generating something that better captured what I wanted to convey! I suspect the trick is in beng very detailed in where I was coming from and the emotions I wanted to engender.

I predict appreciation of AI art will shift to overall imagination, taste, and appreciation of technical nuances noticeable only to those "skilled in the art", such as prompting techniques and the quirks of the model used. I even suspect there will be genres of AI art using weaker models (kind of like photographs with Polaroid cameras.)

So the ruling doesn't necessarily endorse the Copyright Office's analysis referenced in the article (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...), and I think that analysis is just not correct. They describe a creator of AI art as simply "re-rolling the dice" when they try different prompts, but that's not correct, clever prompt engineering definitely allows you to "constrain or channel the program’s processing of the sourcenmaterial" and "alter[] the degree of control over the process"

The way I think of it is this: typical art creation starts from a blank canvas and the artist adds layer upon layer of what you want. Eventually something coherent (to the artist at least) pops out.

AI art starts from a canvas which is filled, and the artist changes the filled canvas to meet their perspective. It’s like those projects where people take a vintage painting and add Pokémon to it. Mostly the people I see using AI art are traditional artists who view it as a new medium in their process, very few “generate” and call it a day.

If I take your AI-generated code file and write it as an artsy-looking image, do I get to deny you copyright?

If you are "anti-AI" and you’ve never changed or evolved your argument - I suggest a pause, a step back and a substantial revaluation.

Some of these comments in this thread - have me wondering if they have actually interacted with an AI.

You are not correct on "principle" - this isn't a moral thing, if you have taken an ethical position - its bc you dont have a functional understanding of how to make it function.

If you were functionally interacting with AI, you would have a more substantial postion, with actual criticism that would have value.

I'm reading a lot of sloppy- written by people, about AI slop.