I don’t know, if the design itself is copyrighted you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages.

If I hired a bunch of people to build me a house, and I drafted the architectural plans with the help of a paid architect, neither the architect nor the builders have ownership over the home.

So if a collection of people design something together maybe that has merit, they collectively paid for Anthropic to build it for them…

▲

jonhohle 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’m pretty sure copyright office has settled that already. Inly human expression can be copyrighted:

> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

	▲	tgma 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The United States Copyright office. There's a whole world outside the US. And even then they can change their mind. Does not hurt to backstop with an explicit license.

▲

unmole 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> you could argue that the AI is just a bunch of hired workers that built it for extremely low wages.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an assertion.

With apologies to Mr. Charles Babbage.