5 ms·
The courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point.
by henryfjordan 1mo ago
The courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point.
- ethin 1mo agoSure, but I would be incredibly shocked if the courts overturned these conclusions. These kinds of determinations are within the remit of the USCO, so a court does not need to come out and say it if the USCO has already done so. Obviously, as I said it would be better if congress weighed in and solved this problem, given that the USCO is free to publish a new NOI to change it's practices/policies, but we all know that congress is too gridlocked atm for that to happen
- zmmmmm 1mo agoBut there are no conclusions. It literally says: > Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis It says a plain prompt is not enough but that is not the reality of real software development. People aren't one-shotting complex business apps. The vast majority of software development will trivially pass that bar and end up in the "requires case by case analysis".
- semiquaver 1mo agoI am trying really hard not to accuse you of not having read what you posted, because your conclusions are in strong tension with what it plainly says.