this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
238 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

67050 readers
5590 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
238
Judge disses Star Trek icon Data’s poetry while ruling AI can’t author works (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de to c/technology@lemmy.world
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

While I am glad this ruling went this way, why'd she have diss Data to make it?

To support her vision of some future technology, Millett pointed to the Star Trek: The Next Generation character Data, a sentient android who memorably wrote a poem to his cat, which is jokingly mocked by other characters in a 1992 episode called "Schisms." StarTrek.com posted the full poem, but here's a taste:

"Felis catus is your taxonomic nomenclature, / An endothermic quadruped, carnivorous by nature; / Your visual, olfactory, and auditory senses / Contribute to your hunting skills and natural defenses.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations, / A singular development of cat communications / That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection / For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection."

Data "might be worse than ChatGPT at writing poetry," but his "intelligence is comparable to that of a human being," Millet wrote. If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works. But that time is apparently not now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Infynis@midwest.social 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The existence of intelligence, not the quality

[–] morphballganon@mtgzone.com 4 points 2 days ago

The smartest parrots have more intelligence than the dumbest republican voters

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

What does that mean? Presumably, all animals with a brain have that quality, including humans. Can the quality be lost without destruction of the brain, ie before brain death? What about animals without a brain, like insects? What about life forms without a nervous system, like slime mold or even single amoeba?

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They already have precedent that a monkey can't hold a copyright after that photojournalist lost his case because he didn't snap the photo that got super popular, the monkey did. Bizarre one. The monkey can't have a copyright, so the photo it took is classified as public domain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

Part of the law around copyright is that you have to also be able to defend your work to keep the copyright. Animals that aren't capable of human speech will never be able to defend their case.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

Yes, the PETA part of that is pretty much the same. It was an attempt to get legal personhood for a non-human being.

you have to also be able to defend

You're thinking of trademark law. Copyright only requires a modicum of creativity and is automatic.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago

Well ChatGPT can defend a legal case.

Badly.

[–] Muaddib@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Intelligence is not a boolean.