[JustLurking2022]

True to some extent although I can see some reasonable arguments as to why. For one, I don't expect AI art to ever replace humans for higher end creative expression - quite simply, part of the value of art is the time put in by a skilled craftsman, like the way a hand made Rolex is worth more watches that are more accurate but mad produced. Similar to Pixar and animation, I believe AI may change the style of art but not the fundamental demand for it.

Coding is far more utilitarian - so if an AI is taking others' original ideas and effectively passing them off as it's own, companies become less likely to feel they need to employ the originator.

[lairv]

I get your point, but if your code was already publicly available, then other humans could already take your original idea by reading your code and effectively passing them as their own, it's true that AI makes this process faster and more automatic

[JustLurking2022]

Other humans could but, if they did so in violation of the terms of the license, I could sue them. Microsoft acknowledged that copilot ignores the license altogether.

[dublinben]

When a human does this today, it's recognized as plagiarism and possibly copyright infringement or even fraud. Why does 'AI-washing' make it alright?