Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!zen!ucla-cs!jason
From: jason@CS.UCLA.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Who owns the output of an AI?
Message-ID: <9118@shemp.UCLA.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11-Nov-87 01:57:22 EST
Article-I.D.: shemp.9118
Posted: Wed Nov 11 01:57:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Nov-87 02:03:09 EST
References: <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu>
Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: jason@CS.UCLA.EDU (Jason Rosenberg)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 30

In article <1778@svax.cs.cornell.edu> houpt@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Charles (Chuck) Houpt) writes:
>
>The interseting thing is that it has a section dealing with
>intellectual property generated by Artificial Intelligences.
>
>   The law says that the output of an AI is owned by the user running the
>AI, NOT the programmer who designed it.
>
>   Is this fare? Should copywrites go to the user or the programmer? 
>   What do you think?
>

	The computer should get the credit.  It does the thinking.  If it put in the
time and research, it should be justly rewarded.  As Dr. Chandra says in
2010, a thinking being should be respected and valued as such.

	Granted, an AI is very dependent on the people around it, particularly
the person who designed it (the programmer and/or computer architect), and
EQUALLY the user.  Any intelligence is worthless without a means of learning
from its surroundings.  Without a decent teacher and provider of information
(the user), an AI will not produce anything useful, except perhaps a detailed
and logical analysis of Cartesian doubt.  Information provided by the user
is inherrently different than that created by the programmer.  The programmer
simply creates a mechanism with which an AI can learn.  The user then
fills in the blank slate with news of the world.



Jason Rosenberg
jason@cs.ucla.edu