Since AI can't actually own copyright they think that it can't be charged with a crime

overfeed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's the lack of personhood rather than inability to produce copyrightable material. However, the companies controlling the AI systems have legal personhood and should absolutely be charged for criminality that transpires under their watch or at their behest.

▲

Zambyte 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Guns also can't hold copyright; can they be charged with crime? (hint: it's the operator who gets charged).

▲

BorisMelnik 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

but not the gun manufacturers

	▲	josefresco 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Wasn't it both in this case? The gun maker, when testing their gun, shot someone.

▲

d_silin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.

▲

iAMkenough 2 hours ago | parent [-]

He’s paid the piper, he’s fine for now.

If anything, he’ll buy a Supreme Court ruling that he can’t be held personally liable for what his AI does.

▲

solid_fuel 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m sure Thomas needs an upgraded RV, so that’s easily handled. And the rest of the conservative ‘justices’ seem happy to betray the constitution for free.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

user43928 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is has nothing to do with copyright.

I understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here.

An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant.

So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.

	▲	mutinyy 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Willful blindness can satisfy the criminal intent requirement. Might be hard to prove, but it's possible.