My question is if I get some code from AI, save it to a file, then modify it or add some functions to it, can I still claim the copyright for it at the top of the file? Do I need to give the AI any credit?

I'm asking because I read somewhere that "AI produced output cannot be copyrighted". But what if I modify that output myself? I am then a co-creator, right, and I think I should have a right to some copyright protection.

First, a few disclaimers, I am not a lawyer and this is an actively evolving area.

The answer that most aligns with current precedent to my knowledge is that the parts you modify are protected by your copyright, but the rest remains uncopyrightable. With the exception of any chunks generated that align with someone's existing copyrighted code, as long as those chunks are substantial and unique enough.

This is how I understand it as well. There was a case of a monkey taking a selfie and the photog attempting to assert copyright. Courts determined (if I remember correctly :p ) that only human works are copyrightable and therefore the monkey's selfie could not be copyrighted at all.

I deleted a whole paragraph with exactly that example, so at least if we're wrong, we're wrong together.

You do.

I suspect the analog will be that the "human in the loop" will bear all the consequences. Perhaps even if they did nothing wrong and are in fact the victim in that situation.

Take the case of Linda Yaccarino. Ordinarily, if a male employee publicly and sexually harassed his female CEO on Twitter, he would (and should) be fired immediately. When Grok did that though, it's the CEO who ended up quitting.

What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend

>>> Meaty feet can be held to a fire. To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable."

>> This is the question I keep asking leaders (I literally asked a VP this question once in an all hands). How do we approach the risk associated mistakes made by AI?

> What was the answer? Asking for a vp friend

This is a difficult issue to tackle, no doubt. What follows drifts into the philosophical realm by necessity.

Software exists to provide value to people. Malicious software qualifies as such due to the desires of the actors which produce same, but will no longer be considered here as this is not germane.

AI is an umbrella term for numerous algorithms having wide ranging problem domain applicability and often can approximate near-optimal solutions using significantly less resources than other approaches. But they are still algorithms, capable of only one thing - execute their defined logic.

Sometimes this logic can produce results similar to be what a person would in a similar situation. Sometimes the logic will produce wildly different results. Often there is significant value when the logic is used appropriately.

In all cases AI algorithms do not possess the concept of understanding. This includes derivatives of understanding such as:

  - empathy
  - integrity
  - morals
  - right
  - wrong

Which brings us back to part of the first quoted post:

  To quote IBM, "A computer can never be held accountable."

Accountability requires justification of actions taken or lack thereof, which demands the ability to explain why said actions were undertaken relative to other options, and implies a potential consequence be imposed by an authority.

Algorithms can partially "justify their output" via strategic logging, but that's about it.

Which is why "a computer can never be held accountable." Because it is a machine, executing the instructions ultimately initiated by one or more persons whom can be held accountable.

In the all hands I got an answer about techniques that would be used to reduce the likelihood of mistakes. Ie not an answer.