Perhaps the AI should own it, not the organisations that created the AI? What if the AI is given rights and the organisations that created the AI be considered custodians?
An interesting concept, but based on traditional legal frameworks, the AI would have to be a contractor and have an agreement that it owned any IP it produced. Otherwise, it would be an employee and all IP owned by its employer. I do like the way you looked outside the square though.
@@ricraftisau Thank you! Iff, the AI is able to identify which works of art/information it used as 'inspiration' the AI could give some sort of remuneration to the works creator(s). Overall I think we will need to treat the AI as their own legal entities at some point, especially if they encroach upon semi-sentience. Else, we will effectively be enslaving a disembodied super intelligent 'being'.
Perhaps the AI should own it, not the organisations that created the AI? What if the AI is given rights and the organisations that created the AI be considered custodians?
An interesting concept, but based on traditional legal frameworks, the AI would have to be a contractor and have an agreement that it owned any IP it produced. Otherwise, it would be an employee and all IP owned by its employer. I do like the way you looked outside the square though.
@@ricraftisau Thank you! Iff, the AI is able to identify which works of art/information it used as 'inspiration' the AI could give some sort of remuneration to the works creator(s).
Overall I think we will need to treat the AI as their own legal entities at some point, especially if they encroach upon semi-sentience. Else, we will effectively be enslaving a disembodied super intelligent 'being'.
Who owns *any* stolen property? The original owners, obviously. Theft does not confer ownership.😅