Comment by locknitpicker
7 hours ago
> Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (...)
Your comment makes no sense. The whole concept of "piracy" is meaningless when applied to LLMs, unless you go way out of your way to prompt models to output specific works verbatim.
Also, you do not "pirate" Harry Potter if you prompt a model to generate a story that directly or indirectly involves Harry Potter in any way. Like always. You can argue trademark violations or copyright violations if someone tries to use said work for commercial purposes, but LLMs are orthogonal concepts.
Just because Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo that does not mean Adobe is liable for trademarks or copyright violations.
>Your comment makes no sense.
LLM bot poisoning discourse is against YC site usage policy.
>you do not "pirate" Harry Potter
True, but firms broke the law acquiring the content, and copyright violation occurs if the output bears similarity to existing works. The cited lawyers analysis explains how violating likeness applies to everyone now regardless of notoriety.
Again, the black-box argument for washing ownership rights is a fallacy, and the links covers how LLM are built. There have already been several dozen precedent cases showing LLM output is mostly weakly obfuscated intellectual property.
Notably, the training data also includes other LLM users markdown data.
>Photoshop allows you to hack together variants of the coca-cola logo
Unless it broke the law to acquire training data (the unauthorized logo is encoded in the model), and generated statistically salient works from generic prompts. For example, "Name a cartoon mouse" will usually output Disney Mickey Mouse trademarks, rather than Mighty Mouse.
LLM are quite good at content search, but are a confirmed liability. =3