[throwup238]

IANAL but I was under the impression that Supreme Court ruling was very specific to the AI itself copyrighting its own produced code. Once a human is involved, it gets a lot more complicated and rests on whether the human's contribution was substantial enough to make it copyrightable under their person.

[galaxyLogic]

A fun exercise: When Supreme Court has not ruled on an open legal question of interest, let's ask AI what would be a likely ruling by Supreme Court.

I think SCOTUS might in fact use AI to get a set of possible interpretations of the law, before they come up with their decision. AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.

[CrazyStat]

> AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons.

This is what lawyers do, in their briefs and oral arguments before the court.

[galaxyLogic]

True. But if I was a judge I might want to consult AI to get a "neutral" opinion.

[CrazyStat]

AI "neutrality" is a mirage. Hopefully the Supreme Court justices are smart enough to know that.

[galaxyLogic]

Hopefully. If they are smart they know that everybody can be wrong, therefore it is good to hear differing opinions and argumentation from multiple sources, in important matters.

[CrazyStat]

Yes, that’s why they have lawyers submit briefs and make oral arguments.