Comment by strogonoff
22 days ago
1. Google was, and still is in some developed countries, under fire for as much as summarising search results too much, so I think yes, the claims have legs.
> This would be separate from the contributory infringement claim if the model will output a copyrighted work verbatim
2. Commercial for-profit models were shown to do that, and (other legal arguments aside, such as model and/or its output being a derivative work, etc.) in some cases that was precisely the smoking gun for the lawsuit, if I recall correctly.
I have not seen any conclusive outcome, I suppose it will depend on jurisdiction.
I can guarantee you if one jurisdiction limits AI training via copyright law, another one won’t, and it will have a huge competitive advantage as a result. That competitive advantage alone means you either have to leave the race or change your laws.
> I can guarantee you if one jurisdiction limits AI training via copyright law, another one won’t, and it will have a huge competitive advantage as a result.
What is the competitive advantage of using chatbots, exactly?
Any advantage from ML that I can think of comes from advanced applications that require pre-existing knowledge, like biotech, metamaterials, etc.
— I fail to see how being able to use ML to cheat on a test or to avoid learning something (including command of own language) provides an advantage.
— I can see how requiring an LLM trained on unlicensed work to be opened up and free for everyone to use could provide an advantage.
— I can see how lack of regulation in this industry could result in a quick reduction of the number of jobs in a number of industries and therefore be a disadvantage to the economy, in the worst case benefiting a small number of for-profit corporate operators.