Discussion
Really wrestling with the idea today; that folks are going to decide/have decided that code isn't art or speech; and therefore doesn't deserve to be protected from genAI like other art forms.
Which really stings; because it's always been a medium; thats spoken to me and ive felt creative in. #genAI #AntiAI #NoAI
@cstanhope I feel like it is the implicit assumption in a lot of online and real life discussion of genAI, As folks gnash their teeth on where it is appropriate and where it isn't.
AND it just feels like, where this particular legal train appears to be heading.
Interesting... imo, as someone who is drawing and painting and also coding, all is very much a form of art. In both you express an idea by creativity and own means.
But hey, what do I know... I don't understand some things that are called Art, either.🤷♀️
@trashheap Yeah. It will be a different world if that happens. Code as copyrightable as a schematic... We'd still be able to use it as a form of expression, it's just that we wouldn't be able to claim copyright over it. But there are other means of enforcing or at least establishing norms. :/
Then again, maybe we'll just revisit the whole legal topic and end up somewhere like we have with integrated circuit masks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_design_protection
@trashheap I'm getting hung up on copyright, but rereading your posts I get the impression you are more referring to respecting the craft and those who practice it?
@trashheap I hadn't thought of it that way, but I suppose that's the concluding thought once you say something like "programming isn't an art" or "I am not expressing myself when I program". The conclusion would then be that it is a purely functional medium, which would also undo decade of copyright protection, but anyway... What brings this up? Just musing on the consequences, or have there been more people making that argument recently?