And every time it works, they still don't acknowledge it. Would he have blown up bridges and power plants? Quite possibly. Would he have dropped a nuke? Obviously not.
As an attorney, I know copyright law. (This is not legal advice.) There's nothing about copyright law that says you have to credit an AI coding agent for contributing to your work. The person receiving the code has to perform their due diligence in any case to determine whether the author owns it or has permission from the owner to contribute it.
Can you back this up with legal precedence? To my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been ruled by the courts.
Additionally, this raises another big issue. A few years ago, a couple guys used software (what you could argue was a primitive AI) to generated around 70 billion unique pieces of music which amounts to essentially every piece of copyrightable music using standard music scales.
Is the fact that they used software to develop this copyrighted material relevant? If not, then their copyright should certainly be legal and every new song should pay them royalties.
It seems that using a computer to generate results MUST be added as an additional bit of analysis when it comes to infringement cases and fair use if not a more fundamental acknowledgement that computer-generated content falls under a different category (I'd imagine the real argument would be over how much of the input was human vs how much was the system).
Of course, this all sets aside the training of AI using copyrighted works. As it turns out, AI can regurgitate verbatim large sections of copyrighted works (up to 80% according to this study[0]) showing that they are in point of fact outright infringing on those copyrights. Do we blow up current AI to maintain the illusion of copyright or blow up current copyright law to preserve AI?
You're asking a lot of very good and thoughtful questions, but none are directly related to the immediate issue, which is "do I have to credit the AI model?".
The irony is this is an allegory for two cities who "committed adultery" against the covenant relationship with God by becoming bedfellows with pagan authorities in a "lust" for power. This isn't actually about sex just very strong poetic allegory to raise awareness.
You may have mobility but you are not a citizen of the host country, so therefore you should not have the right to dictate their laws. You are a welcome guest until you actually become a citizen (through whatever process they define).
How this is not obvious common sense surprises me. Otherwise significant portions of the population of any EU country could get jobs in another one and then start influencing its politics just because they "pay tax". Essentially colonising the country.
Europeans are increasingly associating with Europe over an individual country. US citizens have been doing this for a long time. They are citizens of the US before the state they reside in.
This data seems to suggest something completely different than that people are associating as citizens of EU instead of citizens of their respective countries.
93% of respondents are correct in that you become an EU citizen automatically by living in an EU country, and 87% "feel" that they're EU citizens.
I am not saying that European citizens are saying they are saying they are European over their nationality, but that the trend towards a European identity is going up over time.
For Austria and Spain this would mean 10 years (at least) of not being able to vote and THEN renouncing your birth citizenship. Not sure this is a very pragmatic solution, unless the goal is to keep immigrants from voting.
