Raw LLM Responses

TOOLS (like AI and computers, etc.) should never disrupt or negate a creator's Intellectual Property rights! Stifling music creators and artists — by discouraging them to use whatever tools inspire and assist them — would stifle the Arts and be a disservice to humanity! Not giving creators ANY credit for works made strictly with prompts makes no sense. Not giving them FULL credit doesn't make sense either, since: (A) AI is not alive and cannot get or share credit or royalties; and (B) since AI coders/developers cannot predict AI output with certainty. Nor can AI coders/developers predict what prompts will be used. And therefore the developers cannot claim credit. If I'm co-writing a song with someone and I PROMPT them to come up with a certain concept for a certain line, there's never been a question that I'm the co-writer — even if the other writer came up with the final version of the line. Many producers work with an engineer or co-producer and verbally produce, while the other person does all or most of the hands-on portion, yet both leave their creative stamp on the final product and therefore share its copyright protection. What about AI assisting someone who has no hands and cannot type or use a mouse, turning their verbal ideas into something creative? If an inventor had a unique idea for an invention and used AI to sketch a blueprint, they should still own the patent (which is similar to copyright), since the invention is their idea, and AI is not alive to co-own anything. Even if the AI added random useful details, the inventor should be able to use them as inspiration for the final version. Full stop. Not allowing such an inventor to claim and protect their ideas and the results they patent would be a disservice to humanity, since it would stifle innovation! Again, stifling music creators and artists — by discouraging them to use whatever tools inspire and assist them — would likewise stifle the Arts and be a disservice to humanity! Some might see a grey area when AI adds unexpected "extras" beyond the prompt. However, some of that is AI making creative choices, while some is just obvious logic, like placing a shadow where it naturally belongs in an image. There are countless examples of people collaborating on creative works without physically fixing their ideas to a medium (allowing their collaborator to do so), yet they still enjoy copyright protection. When more is added to a creative person's idea, they SHARE the intellectual property with whoever contributed additional details. They can't share those rights with AI, because AI is not a person — it makes educated, but RANDOM, guesses. Impressive as it is, I still believe the *human* should retain full ownership of the work resulting from their collaboration with AI. I'm baffled as to how the copyright office is overlooking examples like these. Another strong example: using a computer to "randomize" parameters in a synth, MIDI velocity, or note order in an arpeggio. I've never heard anyone argue that a musician who prompts a computer to randomize information doesn’t own the resulting work. Stable diffusion, large language models (LLMs) and similar AI tools are just a more advanced version of clicking the "randomize" button in a synth, DAW or VST plugin. Since AI is not sentient and cannot register a copyright — and since AI developers usually cannot predict AI's precise output — the results are simply "random." I remember being amazed the first time I used an arpeggiator on a keyboard or clicked the "humanize" button in a drum machine. It's the same thing — humans using AI to create their work should get full credit for the results. Curating AI output is a creative process that deserves IP protection, especially when working with randomly generated data or ideas that belong to no one. AI data belongs to *no one* UNTIL it is curated and fixed to a medium for use, and then it should most certainly belong to the person(s) who prompted, curated and fixed it to a medium. Let me emphasize this: Stable diffusion, LLMs and similar tools are no different than a randomize button; so users should receive the same copyright protections they've always had when using computerized randomize features or when curating an amalgam of other material not owned by anyone. Imagine if you had to report to the copyright office that you used a randomize button or an arpeggiator! Ridiculous! I loved your example of the photograph, and how a person can own a photograph due to prompting the camera to take the shot from a certain position, in certain lighting, at a certain moment in time, etc. The photographer doesn't own WHAT is being photographed, but DOES own the product resulting from PROMPTING a machine to automatically CAPTURE their subject at that moment from that angle (thus fixing it to a medium). The same applies to AI — at least until we start recognizing AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) as sentient and giving it rights. Even then, copyright should be SHARED between AI and the human collaborator, no matter how the collaboration happened. It's just like how songwriters don’t have to disclose *how* they collaborated — whether one person wrote down lyrics while another provided verbal direction. AI is a TOOL, nothing more. If I use sandpaper to smooth a table, and microscopic grain patterns form on the surface, I don’t suddenly say the sandpaper owns the table, or have to report that I used a sander — nor do I get discriminated against if I decide to sell or otherwise register the IP for the final product. TOOLS (like AI and computers, etc.) should never disrupt or negate a creator's IP rights! Why is this even a debate? If AI outputs something too similar to a copyright-protected work due to training data, the claim should be against the AI *company*, not the person using AI as a tool. But that’s a different and separate issue outside the scope of the video/discussion here. I'd love to hear your thoughts in a future video! Super curious! Definitely SUBSCRIBED!! Excellent video! Love your WORK!