I think this is a logical extension of the workplace rule of "you own what your bot writes;" it's hypocritical not to hold corporations to the same standards as individuals (I say, with terminal naiveness)

▲

matheusmoreira an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> you own what your bot writes

Kinda weird that this is everyone's attitude while the copyright lawyers are saying the opposite. Total liability without any actual ownership.

▲

romanows 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"own" in the sense of "be responsible for the consequences". Not in the sense of "be able to grant reproduction rights".

▲

matheusmoreira 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's how I interpreted it. I just wanted to highlight what I see as a discrepancy. They're putting all the liability on us because it's a tool with no intent of its own while simultaneously saying prompts don't count as creativity because it's not a tool like a photographic camera it's just a casino where you roll the dice. Quite self-contradictory in my opinion.

	▲	IsTom 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There's plenty of tools that can cause harm without having to be creative to use them.

▲

daveguy 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

GP's phrasing was not precise, but I think most people understood it was liability ownership and not copyright. Ownership with respect to copyright and ownership with respect to legal liability are two completely different concepts.

	▲	_verandaguy 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's correct. What I meant was that if my bot writes defective code for whatever reason, I am responsible for that (though conversely, if I get more done because of the bot, anthropic gets the praise).

▲

inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's hypocritical if you believe fairness is intended, but if you believe protecting rich people and hurting poor people is intended then the contradiction is entirely consistent with that.