zlacker

I think the distinction is that only one of those classes tends to produce exact copies of work. Programmers get very upset at DALL-E and Stable Diffusion producing exact (and near-exact) copies of artwork too. In contrast to exact copying, production of imitations (not exact copies, but "X in the style of Y") is something that artists have been doing for centuries, and is widely thought of as part of arts education.

For some reason, code seems to lend itself to exact copying by AIs (and also some humans) rather than comprehension and imitation.

>>pclmul+(OP)
I'm mildly suspicious that this example is an implementation of a generic matrix functionality though: you couldn't patent this sort of work, because it's not patentable - it's a mathematics. It's fundamentally a basic operation, that would have to be implemented with a similar structure regardless of how you do it.

>>XorNot+x7
Patents and copyrights are totally different, and should be treated as such. The issue isn't about whether someone copies the algorithm, it's whether they copy the written code. Nothing in an algorithms textbook is patentable either, but if you copy the words describing an algorithm from it, you are stealing their description.

>>XorNot+x7
Mathematics is not patentable, but you can patent the steps a computer takes to compute the results of that particular algorithm.

>>heavys+vb
Only if it has physical consequences. There was a case in 2014 that narrowed software patents significantly, called "Alice vs CLS Bank." No more patents on computerized shopping carts, but encryption or compression can still be patented.

>>pclmul+(OP)
In my mentoring/tutoring experiences, the comprehension is also resisted when a copy is available.