Here’s hoping that the AI-created films don’t go all in on woke content! And while woke inputs will create woke output, AI can be edited to produce alternative fare that would be impossible to produce in today’s Hollywood.
AI will empower creators to develop movies out of a bedroom. Every home in the country will have the chance to be Hollywood. The future of media, entertainment, gaming, etc etc cannot grasp the implications going forward. Society will be forever changed with newer and newer developments going forward.
This guys lawsuit seems ridiculous.
If somebody uses a tool, be it a piece of paper, a calculator, a pencil, or software to create something then we have always considered them to be the creator of an otherwise patentable product right?
Nobody stops to think it might be the piece of paper, the calculator, the pencil, or software that ought to be considered the creator. Why should AI software be different?
“The justices turned away Thaler’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that patents can be issued only to human inventors and that his AI system could not be considered the legal creator of two inventions that he has said it generated.”
In order for AI to produce a solution, a human must input and accurately describe the problem to the AI. AI does not have the ability to invent solutions on its own.
The fact is that patents (and the rest of intellectual property considerations) are designed to allow humans to earn a living off their creative work. AI doesn’t need to earn a living, so there is no justifiable need for their creative work to be protected. They can go right into the pool of common knowledge for the betterment of all mankind.
Besides which, intellectual property laws are already obsolete and unenforceable, society just hasn’t caught up with the change in reality yet. So it certainly makes no sense to expand them when they are bound to go the way of the Dodo soon anyway. Not that this objection will have much effect on humans; we’ll obstinately cling to the obsolete ideas as long as we can, as we always do.
“Here’s hoping that the AI-created films don’t go all in on woke content!”
If you’re worried about that, just train your own AI to produce non-woke content. If this really comes about, then private citizens will be able to pump out feature films just about as easily as the studios. The studios will still have an edge in marketing, but they’re going to need it if they are competing with the populace at large who just want to make an entertaining product and who aren’t saddled with trying to please all the political commissars.
An AI system is a team of human programmers acting by proxy. If their program produces something of value, the team is the one that has created it and deserves the royalties.
AI systems are not humans, in spite of what some science fiction writers would like to believe, and they do not bear responsibility for their actions and do not get to benefit from their creations. And AI systems are not persons. They are programs.
The lawsuit would be more credible if it had been filed by the AI, not the human.
Most Hollwood script writing is so hopelessly formulaic, I see no reason why AI would not be a perfect match for it.
These folks are way ahead of themselves. If technology can’t even make auto tune sound real, new movies with a young Marilyn Monroe and Carrie Grant are galaxies away. Simoné is a fantasy.
Next, we need a court to rule that an 'AI', can't copyright anything either, based on this ruling.
bump