4 ms·

Thanks for saying this, this is my perspective as well and I've been kinda dumbfounded by all the questions about copyright from LLMs. They're just tools and co

Thanks for saying this, this is my perspective as well and I've been kinda dumbfounded by all the questions about copyright from LLMs. They're just tools and computer programs right? Why would copyright be any different while using them than other tools. Never seen it questioned that Windsor & Newton could actually be the copyright holder for half the world's art.

nucleardog 3y ago
Because the inputs to the models are copyrighted works? If I open up Photoshop and make a new file, I own my art. So why would me opening up an existing PSD and moving all the pieces around and then claiming it as my own be an issue? I don’t think anyone would question this at all if the model were trained only on your own data. It’s the part where a bunch of other people’s stuff was involved that makes it fuzzy enough to be an open legal question.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I read your position as being the copyright should belong to the holders of the copyright for the training works? I can sort of see that but a) I'm also seeing it posited that the copyright could belong to either ht model or the company that produced the model (where does that logic come from?) and b) My own creativity is trained on the works of many others but my work is still my own, why is this different for an LLM?