> Software written by AIs are also not expressions of human creativity
I mean I'm not the biggest fan of AI on the planet by any means (which I think my post history would prove, lol), but isn't prompt design and steering the AI "human creativity"? In one of my AI-assisted projects I spent like a week in unending threads of posts trying to make the AI do stuff the way I wanted, testing the output, finding a bazillion of bugs and "basic bitch" solutions, asking for more robust this and edge case that. It felt like I wrote a novel. How is that not creativity (Crayon-eater or Picasso, creativity is creativity)?
>isn't prompt design and steering the AI "human creativity"?
yes it is, but that does not make the response by the AI an expression of human creativity and therefore not copyrightable.
If you wrote down your teachings about prompt design and published a book, your expression of your creativity would be copyrightable, but your ideas expressed in the book would not be.
if you-the-creative-human's prompt design was written by you as a computer program, that expression of your ideas would be copyrightable. but other people could just express themselves by typing in what your program does without using your particular expression and would not be stopped by copyright.
it's easy to get in the intellectual weeds questioning this, but just step back to, copyright was intended to give authors an income from their work, without stopping other authors from writing their own works. Everybody gets to write a King Lear play if they want, they just can't copy somebody else's expression of the ideas. What expression is trying to capture is "what makes you different from me, be we alike in most other ways"
as a funny sidelight, the titles of books and movies are not copyrightable nor considered part of the copyrighted work, because they are not considered to, in a sense, "leave enough room to contain expressions of human creativity" although when considered in the larger context might contain creative puns or double meanings that make illuminating sense.
However, the title of a movie may be a trademarked term (like Pokemon, Xformerz, or whatnot) but trademark has a "type" of good or service component (line of business) and the trademark would apply to action figures (dolls) and pajamas (clothing), but not to the film itself.
To some extent yes. Your output at work is based on a combination of inputs from others in your organization, and is being paid for by your employer, so the organization owns the copyright on what you make for them.
I think from this view it makes sense that an LLM is a tool, and the operator of that tool (or their employer) can own the output.
The tricky part is when you squint and view an LLM with training input and prompted output as a machine that launders copyrighted input into customized output that is now copyrighted by a new owner.
A machine that vacuums up film reels and splices them according to a set of instructions by the user to create a compilation of recent animated Disney movies with the Shrek soundtrack superimposed would probably not pass legal challenges if the user of the tool attempted to claim full copyright on the output.
his prompt might be the result of human creativity but even in that case it's more than likely not to be a copyrightable expression of human creativity.
a copyrightable expression of human creativity in that case would need to be substantial enough in size to carry an imprint exlusive to your boss.
"why'd the chicken cross the road? to get to the other side" is not copyrightable. you can dress it up all you want, "why didst thy chickencock traverseth thee highway?..." etc would not qualify as something that would be exclusively yours/your bosses, because that trick is still rote.
BUT:
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways I like to see you work.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height and number of your pull requests
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight of your overnight toils
For the ends of being and ideal grace you provide me when you ship!
that would be copyrightable if it was original to your boss.
The law and interpretation of the law does not have the tidy and necessary obsession with fencepost errors and corner cases. It deals with them by stepping back and saying "what would an ordinary person think should be copyrightable vs what would be more akin to the wordgames that clever nerds on the playground get beat up for?
Yes there's no Opus at all on Pro. GPT 5.5 is also missing. Then again what would you expect, the economic reality is beginning to hit. Also I can't be too mad when the "base" models (GPT 5.4...) are still available and decent.
When I see how fast Codex max thinking GPT 5.5 eats our enterprise seat credits almost anything else seems cheap (until we switch our live systems from 5.4 api to 5.5 api I guess)... good thing I'm not the one paying for those credits and tokens (which is probably how most of the money is going to be made on AI going forward, borderline free chatbots for normies are done)
It's just too bad the subsidized costs mean they won't actually feel any real punishment for their failure. Like normally time wasted on its own is enough of a punishment for making a poor decision, but they're not even doing anything themselves here!
Only Google and xAI build their own, no? I don't think it's that easy to vertically integrate massive datacenters into a software company. Both Google and xAI (Tesla, SpaceX) have a massive wealth of experience when it comes to building factories.
New level of glazing Elon Musk unlocked. xAI has a vertical integration advantage because Tesla once moved into an old Toyota factory and because once they paid Panasonic to put a Tesla sign outside a Panasonic battery factory. Incredible content.
Also Orion and other capsules fall like a rock (steep reentry profile ) compared to shuttle/starship, which intentionally slow down the reentry and kinda glide (ballpark 10min with capsules compared to 30min with shuttle/starship).
tl;dr: capsules get fully enveloped in plasma due to their shape, size and reentry profile
I mean I'm not the biggest fan of AI on the planet by any means (which I think my post history would prove, lol), but isn't prompt design and steering the AI "human creativity"? In one of my AI-assisted projects I spent like a week in unending threads of posts trying to make the AI do stuff the way I wanted, testing the output, finding a bazillion of bugs and "basic bitch" solutions, asking for more robust this and edge case that. It felt like I wrote a novel. How is that not creativity (Crayon-eater or Picasso, creativity is creativity)?
reply