I'm sure we are going to have to wait for some actual court cases to establish precedent but I don't really see why this is the case.

If I use a fancy brush in Photoshop to paint flowers into a PNG — do I own the resulting image? Code is bytes of text on disk, not much different from bytes of pixel data in a BMP.

If I have to type every character by hand in order to own the bytes, then it would stand that I would have to input every pixel by hand in Paint to own a graphic. No? Even using the Fill tool is automating the creation of those bytes and would mean I don't own them. Right?

I have an intention for some bytes of data to be set. If I use an LLM to set them instead of my own fingers, why are the bytes suddenly not mine?

I do not understand.

▲

dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Code is bytes of text on disk

Not at all, code is the implementation of an idea. The support/encoding is irrelevant. A human creation is protected by copyright. In the case of prompting an LLM, the human creation is the prompt, the LLM does author the implementation. But it’s not known what happens to the ownership of the LLM generated code

	▲	compiler-guy 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Code is bytes of text on disk".... ...organized in a very specific fashion with a great deal of creativity and attention to that specific organization. I can't copyright the alphabet, but I can copyright certain arrangements of it, subject to a variety of rules.

▲

cbarnes99 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You clearly didn't actually look at the link and are just responding to the title. There's Supreme Court precedent. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

	▲	lowbloodsugar 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think you read the cases. The Thaler one is about AI created art not code, and Thaler stated that the agent was "the sole creator of the work". The case got no further than that. Thaler said he had no involvement: open and shut case.