> The challenge with these models is that they’ve clearly been trained on (exposed to) copyrighted material, and can also demonstrably reproduce elements of cop

> The challenge with these models is that they’ve clearly been trained on (exposed to) copyrighted material, and can also demonstrably reproduce elements of copyrighted works on demand. If they were humans, a court could deem the outputs copyright infringement, perhaps invoking the subconscious copying doctrine (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...). Every single human has been exposed to copyrighted material, and probably can reproduce fragments of copyrighted material on demand. Nobody ever writes a book or paints a picture without reading a lot of books and looking at a lot of paintings first. For a "subconscious copying" suit to apply, you need to demonstrate "probative similarity" - that is, similarity to copyrighted material that is unlikely to be coincidental. In other words - it's not clear to me that the situation with AI is any different than with a human, or that it presents new legal challenges. If it looks new, it is new.