I think it's like this in the UK, you are required to either admit to it or inform the police who was driving at the time.

For speeding there's a website where you can view photos and a certificate showing the equipment was calibrated recently, and you can admit or nominate another driver (or you can do it via paper forms)

I doubt that much software is entirely AI-generated with no human review or testing, it’s probably more like integrating some public domain snippets you found online into your code (which doesn’t invalidate copyright on the rest of it, or the way it’s put together) or having some files auto-generated by a script (like a C header containing a lookup table for a simple mathematical function, the table isn’t copyrightable itself maybe but the software as a whole still is)

Never mind that.

If a deterministic machine transformation from a copyrightable prompt results in an uncopyrightable image, what do you think a compiler is doing to source code?

AI is not specifically not deterministic from the enduser's perspective. they throw randomness into it and hence why an exact prompt wont produce the same exact result.

a compiler on the other hand is generally pretty deterministic. The non determinism that we see in output is usually non determinism (such as generated dates) in the code that it consumes.

If your argument is that compiler output is more deterministic than image generators, how does that help?

because they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium.

I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.

The original argument was that AI works wouldn't be copyrightable because they are deterministic, i.e. are just an algorithmic transformation lacking in creativity.

that doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here

"The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner."

you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable.

the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.

> human review or testing

Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested

I guess I was thinking more when it involves rewriting large parts of it because they don't work

That would be authorship, no?

It sounds like they might be under the impression that having any AI-generated output in the code even if parts are human authored would invalidate the copyright, which isn’t true

Setting aside the privacy implications (which are obviously very important), it’s like saying “I searched my filesystem and it went through 1,000,000 files. I found the file but it was 99.999999% ineffective” so yes, that’s not a valid metric

Unless they’re saying every failed search is big problem because of the privacy issues I guess

You can use selectors to gain some information about things like input fields, e.g. https://www.invicti.com/blog/web-security/private-data-stole...

Or I guess you could completely restyle and change the text of UI elements so it looks like the user is doing one thing when they're actually doing something completely different like sending you money

Back in 2002 (?) I got banned from a certain auction site because I managed to inject HTML into my username that made it so once I had bid the "Bid" button disappeared for all subsequent users.

How do you know? Some of the text has a slightly LLM-ish flavour to it (e.g. the numbered lists) but other than that I don’t see any solid evidence of that

Edit: I looked into it a bit and things seems to check out, this person has scuba diving certifications on their LinkedIn and the site seems real and high-effort. While I also don’t have solid proof that it’s not AI generated either, making accusations like this based on no evidence doesn’t seem good at all

Not them but the formatting screams LLM to me. Random "bolding" (rendered on this website as blue text) of phrases, the heading layout, the lists at the end (bullet point followed by bolded text), common repeats of LLM-isms like "A. Not B". None of these alone prove it but combined they provide strong evidence.

You can also see the format and pacing differs greatly from posts on their blog made before LLMs were mainstream, e.g. https://dixken.de/blog/monitoring-dremel-digilab-3d45

While I wouldn't go so far as to say the post is entirely made up (it's possible the underlying story is true) - I would say that it's very likely that OP used an LLM to edit/write the post.

Hang on, they used a computer to help them create the post content?! Outrageous.

In addition to being irrelevant, these accusations aren't competent.

Image -> 3D model software already works really well for decorative models, though I would imagine not so much for things with precise measurements

Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0

I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences

This is a nice graph that makes the problem pretty obvious: https://xkcd.com/1732/

I accept radiative physics. I question whether we have correctly quantified the system's natural noise floor, and whether adaptation might outperform mitigation for human flourishing.

The last sentence makes it clear that it is sarcasm

The commenter was being sarcastic about trains I think, but while we should be using public transport where possible there is sometimes a need for door-to-door transport so I don't see why we can't explore new ideas that may combine some of the advantages of both for certain use cases