You can claim something is yours, even if you didn’t physically construct it. This happens a ton in real life.
Architects design building, but don’t actually create it. They can legally claim the building as made by them.
In music, a producer, or for better relevance, a songwriter, can write the lyrics and/or melody for a song. The singer can claim they made the record, but the songwriter can legally claim they made the song.
Most commonly, in software. A software architect or a systems designer can create the blueprint for a software, by mapping out logic, user flow, and infrastructure. Then a team of junior developers go and code it and develop it. The app is still the creation of the software developer. Which is extremely similar to this case.
Fashion designers, sketch dresses. Seamstresses and factory workers do create them. The designer can claim the dress as their creation.
Less relevant, but probably way more common in most people’s lives: Movies. Scriptwriter/screenwriter works with a director to create a script and how it should play out. The actors though, are the ones who act it out. A bunch of other staff help with props, camera, etc. It is then legally credited as a “Film created by…”
Everything you typed is completely irrelevant because it assumes we're arguing on a legal basis when we aren't. No one brought up legal rights. We are clearly arguing in an ontological sense, and the analogy is pointing out how much contribution you practically had in the creation of something, so I'm not sure if you're being dense on purpose or if you genuinely misunderstood the point of the analogy and the discussion. There are countless examples in real life of people who are legally credited as being the creators of something when in reality people don't acknowledge them as such because they know that other people contributed more significantly to the creation.
Ontologically, your input is literally the same whether you're asking someone to draw something or an AI to do it, so your contribution to that thing's creation is the same in both cases. It's that simple.
For stuff like art, I would agree. However stuff like programs aren’t considered art, or similar to art. If you exclude a legal standpoint, MORALLY, this still all applies. Software designers can say they created this software. They will still have to mention they didn’t create it by themselves, but they have every right to do so.
Also, I don’t think ontological would be the best way to describe this argument, though I do get what you mean. For example, the builders example:
In an ontological sense, you can consider either the builders or the architects to be the people who made the building, depending on what school of philosophy you follow. If you are somewhat of a formalist, you’d think that the Architect has the moral right to claim the building as being made by him, aligning with Plato’s theory of forms: True essence of building is the idea, structure and design concept.
However, if you follow a more materialistic/hylomorphic view, you’d see it similar to Aristotle’s theory of matter, which in this case would mean that builders are the creators since they but substance into reality.
There is no objective answer when you are being general. I was just stating my opinion and why I think I was right. If you were to be specific about it, then if a person made something with AI, they are the author of intent, and AI is the author of execution.
However, you would think both claims are equal. However, from an ontological standpoint, a human’s claim is ontologically superior.
The main arguments are:
The prime mover argument: the fact that you posses independent intent (the final clause), the AI posses 0 intent and only listens to you, therefore since you are the first clause, your claim to creation sits higher.
The paintbrush argument: pretty self explanatory.
The material clause: AI is not creating or inventing programming. It is just synthesising the collective intelligence of humans to serve your vision, so it can be considered highly advanced retrieval and formatting from humans, directed by your brain.
You are the architect, the visionary, and the judge. AI is only the fabricator. Ontologically, the software is yours.
Hopefully now you won’t go around throwing philosophical terms you don’t know.
Also by no means do I encourage stuff like AI art, but I do believe in general AI is beneficial, although it should have wayyy more restricted development.
Ontological is exactly what I'm describing, which is the actual state of something rather than the legal state of it. You're the one trying to throw around a bunch of irrelevant arguments in an attempt to make something look more complicated than it is. Now you involve morals when at no point in this discussion was morality invoked. Morals have nothing to do with this discussion. We aren't talking about whether it's moral for someone to claim they made something, we are talking about how much they contributed to its creation.
Once again, in an ontological sense, as in the actual sense, your contribution is ontologically the same whether you ask someone or an AI to do something.
The action performed by you is objectively and physically the same. This applies to anything. Being art or not is irrelevant. The action of contributing to something's creation doesn't stop existing just because it's not an art.
I'm not sure why you keep acting dense and misunderstanding something so obvious. The analogy was straightforward.
If you actually read my comment, you’d realise the entire thing disregarded legality and only talked about what ontologically means, what cases both arguments have, and which ones are more relevant. AI has only one argument. Reread the comment again. So yes, I agree with what your definition of ontological is. And based my entire last comment around it. Before reading my comment maybe learn to read first. I am happy for any criticism on any of my arguments, but I can’t respond if you don’t actually try to debunk them. Come on you can do better, I believe in you
Your cases are irrelevant. I already read addressed this. You invoked concepts that were completely irrelevant to what was being discussed such as morality. You are arguing about things that isn't the basis of this discussion. This isn't a discussion about moral claim.
2
u/LimpCustomer4281 18h ago
You can claim something is yours, even if you didn’t physically construct it. This happens a ton in real life.
Architects design building, but don’t actually create it. They can legally claim the building as made by them.
In music, a producer, or for better relevance, a songwriter, can write the lyrics and/or melody for a song. The singer can claim they made the record, but the songwriter can legally claim they made the song.
Most commonly, in software. A software architect or a systems designer can create the blueprint for a software, by mapping out logic, user flow, and infrastructure. Then a team of junior developers go and code it and develop it. The app is still the creation of the software developer. Which is extremely similar to this case.
Fashion designers, sketch dresses. Seamstresses and factory workers do create them. The designer can claim the dress as their creation.
Less relevant, but probably way more common in most people’s lives: Movies. Scriptwriter/screenwriter works with a director to create a script and how it should play out. The actors though, are the ones who act it out. A bunch of other staff help with props, camera, etc. It is then legally credited as a “Film created by…”
Then the analogy is just flawed and stupid