Neither copyright nor copyrightability has anything whatsoever to do with any element of any cause of action thus it is wholly orthogonal to whether anyone has been wronged in any unrelated fashion.

Judges are liable to be old, not very hip to technology, and incredibly suspicious of any argument that would allow someone to opt out of traditional culpability by adding with an AI to the end of a description of traditional wrong doing.

Yeah but no, the implicature still allows copyright without culpability (edited: got that mixed up). The assumption seems to be that the lack of intent in creation, where it is unpredictable, would likewise imply lack of intent to harm. But that doesn't say much.

> If the output of ChatGPT is not copyrightable because it is not created by a human,

Isn't compiler output copyrightable?

> Isn't compiler output copyrightable?

Not by the compiler vendor.

Someone will have to be found accountable. What about when we start hooking these systems up to machinery? If AirlinerGPT kills 200 people and an NFL team, people will absolutely not accept that there's no one responsible. There will be congressional subpoenas, sweeping new laws will be passed. It's best we start thinking ahead of time what we want those laws to be.

the people responsible will be the ones who hooked a plane up to chatGPT knowing that chatGPT can't be intrinsically trusted, not the makers of chatGPT itself

if a pilot gave the airliner controls to a dog, we wouldn't blame the dog or its parents for crashing the plane

Sure, but humans should absolutely be liable for what they do with the output they compel it to generate.