AI = No author is so bloody reductionist.

The copyright ruling was about prompting without modification. The second you modify the result significantly by hand, the ruling doesn't apply. It also had a huge carve out for any future LLM that was more deterministic, which might apply to people with huge skill and other md files to tram in AI. It just hasnt been tested.

These armchair copyright lawyers need to launch a lawsuit and stick their money where their mouth is instead of creating dumb clickbait nonsense.

▲

Balooga 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The "significant modification" is key. So I don't think one can claim copyright on a book an AI created from a prompt (or even 10,000 prompts) after performing a search/replace to rename the protagonist from A to B.

▲

protocolture 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The "Significant Modification" is untested in the US at least. I know in China for example, a judge upheld copyright after 27 prompts and a watermark.

	▲	Balooga 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's interesting to know. Thank you.

▲

dgellow 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I removed that part from the submission title, I agree it’s a bit too click-baity