It's the lack of personhood rather than inability to produce copyrightable material. However, the companies controlling the AI systems have legal personhood and should absolutely be charged for criminality that transpires under their watch or at their behest.
replyGuns also can't hold copyright; can they be charged with crime? (hint: it's the operator who gets charged).
replybut not the gun manufacturers
replyWasn't it both in this case? The gun maker, when testing their gun, shot someone.
replyBut humans can be. I am sure Sam Altman wants to avoid serving multiple decades in American prison for felonies his AI did.
replyHe’s paid the piper, he’s fine for now.
replyIf anything, he’ll buy a Supreme Court ruling that he can’t be held personally liable for what his AI does.
I’m sure Thomas needs an upgraded RV, so that’s easily handled. And the rest of the conservative ‘justices’ seem happy to betray the constitution for free.
replydeleted
replyIs has nothing to do with copyright.
replyI understand the applicable laws require intent. Since neither a human nor OpenAI knowingly performed these acts, it would seem very unlikely that anyone is going to be prosecuted here.
An AI model cannot currently be a criminal defendant.
So, no big criminal case, contrary to what some drama queens on here seem to wish for.
Willful blindness can satisfy the criminal intent requirement. Might be hard to prove, but it's possible.
reply