Kevin Karhan 
@isotopp nodds in agreement
There's a good reason for that being the case.
- Without #Authorship there's no "root" of #copyrightable content and thus no way to start off a '#copyright and #licensing tree'.
@char @ben as shit as it sounds, "#learning" isn't something unique to humans or mammals.
- Ethics aside re: #WastefulComputing, a #machine cannot create #copyrightable works because it legally can't have #authorship and thus not bear any #copyright.
If you have read the article linked you would've seen that trying to "curb in" and crimimalize #MachineLearning would basically shoot research and studying in the foot - with a fully loaded stechkin set on fully-automatic - and then wounder why there's blood on the floor...
@dragonarchitect @csgraves @nixCraft @gearlicious both is true:
- "#AI" can't violate #copyright.
- #Scraping is not #CopyrightInfringement!
- Machine-generated output is not #copyrightable because it doesn't have a human author...
- If we deem #learning as copyright #infringement then we'd all be perpetual #DebtPeons to the #Contentmafia!
I do however condemn the #WastefulComputing for wannabe-"AI" that doesn't add anything meaningful to society and the world in general: Just like #NFTs and #Cryptocurrency-#Shitcoins!
Gary Hall30-Second Book Reviews.
No.2
K. Allado-McDowell’s pioneering experimental novel Amor Cringe is ‘half traditionally-written and half AI-generated’ (2022), and is published on an all rights reserved basis by Deluge Books. The same applies to KAM’s collection Pharmako-AI, which bills itself as the ‘first book to be co-written with the language #AI #gpt3' (2020). It is published all rights reserved by Ignota Books, with serif being used to identify those parts written by KAM, and serif font the inputs KAM gave the model, the rest being written by GPT-3. This ensures the two co-authors – human and #machine – remain ontologically distinct. In not being authored primarily by nonhumans, it also ensures both books are #copyrightable. But what if, as KAM suggested recently, art in the 21st C will weave together human and machine intelligences (https://www.ica.art/learning/cybernetic-serendipity-towards-ai)? How will this impact those #humanist notions #authorship, #attribution and #copyright KAM seems anxious to maintain?
ICA | Cybernetic Serendipity: Towards AI
This day of talks, performances and readings is convened in response to the iconic 1968 exhibition organised by Jasia Reichardt. Looking back to look forward, the day-long event explores the patterns, tropes and pervasive elements of artists using emerging technologies, then and now.
Kevin Karhan 
@djlink Which is funny because in many juristictions like #Germany, #AI can't create #copyrightable output by the fact that only a natural person can have #Authorship and ony things with Authorship have #Copyright.
But then again we also don't have #PublicDomain but only permissible licenses and lapsed Copyright as one can't abdicate or deny Authorship!
@dalfen I hope none of these will apply, but since only natural persons can create #copyrightable works in many juristictions, expect the #contentmafia to try their hardest #lobbying for it...
Just like making cracking #DRM a #felony higher penalized than #piracy...
@ppatel is in line woth other juristictions:
Whilst #Germany doesn't require any registration for something to have #Copyright, only natural persons can create #copyrightable material.
A program like #StableDiffusion does not have personhood, thus cannot create "#art" that has any protections whatsoever.
@Neverfadingwood I find it appaling that they want to see "#Copyright" for an "#AI" writing.
#Machines aren't natural persons and thus cannot create #copyrightable works!
Heck they ain't even legal persons and could not even license or acquire any property - intellectual or material...
@tiffanycli @harikunzru As much as people hate it:
#AI #scraping doesn't violate #copyright nor can an #AI create #copyrightable material since it lacks #personhood.