Post #2796010
2026-03-07 22:33 UTC
@soph@grrl.me
Am I right that by "vibe-coding" you mean "generating code, with no to little human involvement in the process". Which would be different than: "using tools to generate code, but with a human actively in the loop".
I believe the crux of the case in the US was that the defendant claimed they did not create the works, a machine did, and because non-humans cannot claim IP protections they lost the case. Or did I misunderstand something about that case?
Replies (2)
-
@yosh@toot.yosh.is 2026-03-07 22:59
@soph@grrl.me I guess I am slightly more cynical about copyright law. I view it as a tool by capital, for capital — doubly so in countries like the US where bribery is legal in all but name. Right now the stock market is fully leveraged on AI. I don't see how the US would ever find itself in a position where a Supreme Court ruling would ever intentionally put the entire economy in peril.
-
@soph@grrl.me 2026-03-07 23:09
@yosh@toot.yosh.is No, I mean generating code using an LLM at all. Though it'll be up to the lawyers how it's applied. If the machine is the one generating the code, even if you're the one telling it what to generate, then it's still producing things you didn't type or research or... etc