Using a type of artificial intelligence known as deep learning, MIT researchers have discovered a class of compounds that can kill a drug-resistant bacterium that causes more than 10,000 deaths in the United States every year.
Yeah, so the actual law is that if you didn’t do any work and just gave ChatGPT or Midjourney a prompt and it shat out a picture and then brag to the copyright office in your application that you didn’t do diddly squat, the work effectively had no human authors. If, instead, you build a new machine learning model, tune it for your specific problem, analyze the results, and furthermore, break new ground understanding how it solved your problem, and then you write the paper, in fact, you have tons of ownership over the work.
The fact people can’t tell the difference between the two and are actually upvoting you kind of says a lot about how little most people understand this stuff.
Would you also agree it’s rude to imply that this group of researchers, who actually advanced the state of the art in machine learning, are just a bunch of ChatGPT jockeys who don’t deserve credit for their work?
Great; so this is all public domain knowledge since it was created with AI according to current law, right?
Yeah, so the actual law is that if you didn’t do any work and just gave ChatGPT or Midjourney a prompt and it shat out a picture and then brag to the copyright office in your application that you didn’t do diddly squat, the work effectively had no human authors. If, instead, you build a new machine learning model, tune it for your specific problem, analyze the results, and furthermore, break new ground understanding how it solved your problem, and then you write the paper, in fact, you have tons of ownership over the work.
The fact people can’t tell the difference between the two and are actually upvoting you kind of says a lot about how little most people understand this stuff.
I’m just downvoting you for being a smarmy prick. Not because your comment is inaccurate.
Would you also agree it’s rude to imply that this group of researchers, who actually advanced the state of the art in machine learning, are just a bunch of ChatGPT jockeys who don’t deserve credit for their work?
I hope you’re at least consistent and downvoted yourself, then.
Same :/
I think those rulings have only applied to creative works. We’ll see.
This 100% is classified as a creative work. That’s why drugs are able to be patented in the first place.
Depends, what was the training set / knowledge base?
deleted by creator