Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-20 00:56:48 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 84FF45218EED5517A5590EF904913F53584183511282C0BD3106B4439AE85A79
Participant Details

Original Note:

The case referenced in the currently displayed note does not support its conclusion. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbvgooeoqvq/AI%20COPYRIGHT%20LAWSUIT%20thalerdecision.pdf The court was asked to decide if the work of a machine with no human involvement was worthy of copyright. The fact that no human was involved was key to its decision.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1759538601828720913
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 84FF45218EED5517A5590EF904913F53584183511282C0BD3106B4439AE85A79
  • createdAtMillis - 1708390608818
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 175953860182872091384FF45218EED5517A5590EF904913F53584183511282C0BD3106B4439AE85A79