My two cents, making AI cloning would be meaningless for two reasons:
1) First, AI models will eventually be able to do clean-room reverse engineering by just looking at how the program works at the user level ("Oh, if I click on X menu, it's supposed to happen", writing documentation, etc.).
2) From a practical point, the whole "you can't reverse engineer by looking at the code" was only held in court because back in the day, reverse engineering wasn't as easy or cheap as it is nowadays. You literally could prevent people (large companies) from doing it because it was expensive and hard, and companies that could do it were afraid of lawsuits. This is not the case anymore. So the sheer numbers and the scale will make any law preventing reverse engineering by looking at the source code meaningless from all practical standpoints; it was never so cheap to reverse enginer and to "launder" the code you decompiled from such proprietary software binaries.
It'll be the same argument as fair use. You just need to transform the original in some way, and that can be anything. I can't see there being a law that can define where that line is.
My two cents, making AI cloning would be meaningless for two reasons:
1) First, AI models will eventually be able to do clean-room reverse engineering by just looking at how the program works at the user level ("Oh, if I click on X menu, it's supposed to happen", writing documentation, etc.).
2) From a practical point, the whole "you can't reverse engineer by looking at the code" was only held in court because back in the day, reverse engineering wasn't as easy or cheap as it is nowadays. You literally could prevent people (large companies) from doing it because it was expensive and hard, and companies that could do it were afraid of lawsuits. This is not the case anymore. So the sheer numbers and the scale will make any law preventing reverse engineering by looking at the source code meaningless from all practical standpoints; it was never so cheap to reverse enginer and to "launder" the code you decompiled from such proprietary software binaries.
The legal protection for an actually novel process is a patent, not copyright.
It'll be the same argument as fair use. You just need to transform the original in some way, and that can be anything. I can't see there being a law that can define where that line is.
For those without an X account: https://nitter.cf/davepl1968/status/2107875089446580273
No it shouldn't.
Stop trying to police software.