13 ms·

Honestly, I think generative AI losing a massive copyright showdown is inevitable at this stage. It's extremely easy to get the latest generation of AIs to pro

Honestly, I think generative AI losing a massive copyright showdown is inevitable at this stage. It's extremely easy to get the latest generation of AIs to produce outputs that in many fields sans-AI would be trivially considered as IP infringement. While there are many interesting reasonable legal & technical arguments that it's not, the result completely undermines copyright protections regardless. If that's accepted at scale, copyright in practice will change completely. In effect, the choices are "block this, or entirely destroy copyright protections in many industries". You can't allow this without eventually allowing everybody to simulate their own NY Times reporters, produce their own Marvel movies, and create their own Taylor Swift albums. If you do allow that, the many many affected industries have catastrophic problems. Problematic though copyright laws are, I see no world where all those protections go away any time soon, and so if the courts don't agree to protect copyright already in this scenario, then it will eventually be legislated to make that happen. AI consuming copyrighted data and producing an output has to be considered a derivative work (or indeed, the model itself will be considered a derivative work) or IP protections are effectively broken. There's a grace period now while we work our way there, but the politics is pretty clear and with no plausible path to "let's drop copyright completely" ASAP, I just don't see any other result in the medium term. Doesn't mean the end of generative AI by any means, just a slowdown as we move to a world where you need to negotiate rights and buy data to feed it first, instead of scraping everybody else's for free.

Pannoniae 3y ago
Or on the converse: if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. This is a plausible path to "drop copyright entirely", just like encryption was dropped as an export-controlled technology in the late 90s. (remember the 40-bit "international" SSL?) OpenAI etc. have huge amounts of money behind them, they very well have a fighting chance in court to defend their usage of scraping the internet.
- pimterry 3y ago
  > if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. These creative industries include all of software development, music, TV, movies, books, media, art, etc. You do technically solve the problem of copyright by shutting all those down, but I'm not sure it's a solution anybody will vote for. If you can come up with a serious alternative though, which can sustain those creative industries without requiring copyright, now is probably the best moment in all of history to seize the day and make that happen. There's going to be a big shake-up regardless, it's the perfect chance for alternative models. Bear in mind that dropping copyright entirely doesn't just hurt Disney and Sony Music though - with no copyright the GPL and all other open-source licenses are unenforceable, anybody can copy & sell anybody else's art or design without permission, Spotify doesn't have to pay musicians even $0.01 any more, etc etc etc. It's not an easy problem.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    I don't think that no one would create new software/music/books/movies/art/etc. without copyright. Humans have done so for millenia before, they still did so in absence of copyright protections. I don't see how this is not a serious alternative - the only major losers would be the middlemen, not the artists themselves.
    - thrwayaistartup 3y ago
      > Humans have done so for millenia before This is categorically false for both software and movies. For other media, this ignores the effect of zero-effort copying.
    - CodeSgt 3y ago
      Eh, I could definitely see the artists losing. The most obvious scenario that comes to mind for me is, imagine an independent artists launching their (book/film/album/etc) and the same day someone with more resources and experience takes the work and markets it better than the OG author ever could on their own.
      - 3y ago
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  You’ve ironically stumbled upon thenphilosocial argument in favor of copyright! We do want these industries to exist. Without copyright protection in a world of zero effort reproduction, it becomes impossible to make a living this way. This the industries cease to exist. And people stop crafting anything other than the most dogshit of media and programs and writing. If you have to work a different job all day, you’re gonna have no time to make that next good song/video/etc.
  - zb3 3y ago
    But I don't want them to exist, I want to find content that is created because people (who earn money different way) enjoy producing it.
  - 8note 3y ago
    Kickstarter does quite well, as does patreon. Eg. If team cherry didn't have savings from selling hollow knight, I'd pitch in money for them to work on silk song. The modern small artist doesn't even get paid for their art, but for things like their audience
zlg_codes 3y ago
Ruling in favor of copyright will call into question search engines and the like as well. Do you think Bing or Google are going to negotiate copying rights with the world's websites? LLMs are proving that intellectual property has a bunch of holes in it. It's been unstable ground to defend since day one. Upon what principle should we believe that one can own an idea and all performances or derivatives of it? Patents and trademarks haven't really helped as much as they were expected to. Only recently did works as far back as 1920 enter the public domain. Additionally, some LLMs gobble up source code with mixed licensing structures. How is that to be handled? Patents are about monopolies to produce something to hit a market, with the trade-off of showing everyone how it's made. Trademarks just allow you to defend your name(s). Copyright prevents other people from making money off of your work. For the rest of your life, plus 75 years. Something is broken here, alright. While we're discussing intellectual property, what about one's DNA? Is it not a performance of biology? How about your fingerprint? Fingerprints are semi-unique, so it's also a performance mark. We've seen celebrities sue for the use of their likeness, so that's recognized to some degree as well. At what point will data subjects get rights, so that when another Equifax happens, they can be bankrupted and prevented from harming the public again? Most are rhetorical, of course, but I really think generative language models are disrupting a lot of things we used to take for granted, and our models of creatorship are not refined enough to account for digital or statistical copying. Intellectual property as a concept is not compatible with a digital future.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I think there is a major qualitative difference between generative AI and search engines. Search engines index the web and point you at other people's work, along the way showing perhaps too much of that content (thus "stealing" users from the target webpage). But they don't reshuffle existing content into something apparently new and original. The "malicious" case for generative AI is that it sucks in copyrighted work (vs. indexing it), rehashes and produces something that is supposedly original, but really a sophisticated rehash of copyrighted work.
  - golem14 3y ago
    ... as opposed to a human doing the same thing ? It's hard for me to reconcile that it's somehow OK for a student to write a term paper about something (e.g. "Ulysses"), Wikipedia doing the same thing, but on the other hand, not OK for chatGPT doing it.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>>"If you do allow that, the many many affected industries have catastrophic problems." That is the problem. Technically, AI should be allowed to 'read' content, it isn't hidden, and it gets mixed with other content in a 'brain' like thing. AI and Humans can both spit out a new product that is 'similar' and thus be sued on that similarity. But it can also produce endless similar variations at low cost and fast. It is the ease of creating new similar products. You could just as well prompt the AI "make a Taylor Swift song, but different enough to avoid a lawsuit". Think this is an entirely new problem that needs a new law beyond copywrite. Copywrite is not the correct law to us for fighting this. Copywrite law doesn't ban someone from reading the source altogether.
- malcolmgreaves 3y ago
  There’s an unbelievably vast difference between a human’s creative process and the mechanical reproduction of reweighed training data. Machines don’t create, people do.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Is there? I think you are giving too much credit to human creativity. Falling prey to the 'human exceptionalism' argument, or to the 'mysterious'. It just assumes humans are unique, or ineffable, it doesn't provide any of the 'how' it is done. Ask GPT something like "write a screen play for Othello using dialog like Tarantino, but with bit of style like Baz Luhrmann". It produces something pretty creative. And if you say, well it is just combining what came before, that also applies to humans, there are no new ideas. Humans being complicated doesn't mean AI wont catch up. Its just time/money/engineering at this point. In Nature, why would Carbon be more holy than Silicon.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    Why is the human mind not also a machine?
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> AI consuming copyrighted data and producing an output has to be considered a derivative work (or indeed, the model itself will be considered a derivative work) or IP protections are effectively broken. It’s not derivative work though. First, a human didn’t create it, so copyright protections don’t exist on its output. Machines don’t enjoy copyright protections, people do. It’s mechanically copying and reproducing part of its input data set. Making a tool that regurgitates others’ copyrighted IP is going to been seen as aiding mass copyright violations. Exactly like how Napster got sued: they’re holding a bunch of material they shouldn’t be. The only new twist to this case is the data is encoded in a transformer’s weights. This should be correctly seen as the same as having encrypted copyrighted data using a lossy algorithm.
- dilap 3y ago
  Seems unfair as we converge on AGI. If I memorize the lyrics to a song, is that a copyright violation? The lyrics are encoded in the arrangement of my neurons, after all.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    I don't know why people use these analogies. No person can memorize terabytes worth of lyrics.
    - arthurcolle 3y ago
      What if someone could? What if rainman could
      - justinclift 3y ago
        What if rainman could fly too? I guess rainman wouldn't need an airport for short haul trips. So, "good on rainman". Now, for the rest of us...
    - dilap 3y ago
      Does that invalidate the analogy? The point I'm trying to make is if you rule these behaviors illegal, then you're necessarily making intelligent AI illegal, because humans are capable of the same behaviors.
b33j0r 3y ago
Short of a police state, how would you enforce this? This has napster -> subscription spotify energy. But the only people happy about that are Spotify and people who found it distasteful to download music illegally. There just wasn’t a consumer-friendly option for a while, so the black market was the only market. So. The enforcement mechanism is what… a scary DMCA letter? (There will definitely be a stupid DCAIA in the next congress)
- bewaretheirs 3y ago
  The copyright holder gets a share of ownership in any AI model derived from its work, and thus a share of any resulting revenue.
  - ignite 3y ago
    All 10 million of them?
    - bewaretheirs 3y ago
      Any large corporation likely has more individual shareholders than that (particularly when you include indirect ownership via mutual funds).
  - b33j0r 3y ago
    Even Taylor Swift and Elton John get micropennies per play. In an (unrealizable) regime where all copyright holders are compensated, that would include picopennies for the discussion we’ve had!
jandrese 3y ago
I will be interested to see how the copyright suit plays out with Taylor Swift vs. Guy who asked an AI to make a new song that sounds like a generic Taylor Swift song.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kromem 3y ago
Not really. Copyright largely remains about the PRODUCTION of content, not about the CONSUMPTION of it. Someone who grew up reading Marvel comics being able to make new original comics in that style is perfectly ok. That same person perfectly replicating an Avengers comic is going to land them in hot water. The focus on infringement really needs to be on what LLMs produce, not their training. There definitely needs to be something like a secondary pass added which checks output against a vectordb of the training set to avoid too close derivative IP outputs (and ideally checks for jailbreaking or inappropriate content at the same time). Any production services would need to subscribe to a service like that to stave off litigation on infringement, much like how the oft repeated complaints regarding YouTube copyright infringement eventually dissipated as content tagging was added (and shifted to complaints over too broad application of it). A generative AI model having read the NYT but producing new original news articles in the style of a newspaper is a very weird argument for infringement. A human driven service or an automated one that takes current NYT articles and summarizes or reworks them, publishing itself and cutting them out of the ad revenue is more problematic (but also widespread already and generally considered protected). Services which exactly duplicate their articles would be more clearly infringement, but there's no evidence that's even a fraction of what ChatGPT is doing. Criminalizing training would set back whatever county did so significantly in global competition for a critical new economic (and defense) trend, and would ultimately only be a minor stop gap for copyright holders as you'd simply see a market for secondhand generated content from foreign models trained on copyrighted data but then producing content that was itself not copyrightable but could be used to train domestic models.
andrewjl 3y ago
> Problematic though copyright laws are, I see no world where all those protections go away any time soon, and so if the courts don't agree to protect copyright already in this scenario, then it will eventually be legislated to make that happen. AI consuming copyrighted data and producing an output has to be considered a derivative work (or indeed, the model itself will be considered a derivative work) or IP protections are effectively broken. There's a headline out today about several ex-Google Brain engineers, including a co-author of “Attention Is All You Need”, setting up shop in Tokyo. [1] That's not a coincidence. > Amid rising questions about the fairness and legality of using publicly available information to train AI models, Japan affirmed that machine learning engineers can use any data they find. > What’s new: A Japanese official clarified that the country’s law lets AI developers train models on works that are protected by copyright. > How it works: In testimony before Japan’s House of Representatives, cabinet minister Keiko Nagaoka explained that the law allows machine learning developers to use copyrighted works whether or not the trained model would be used commercially and regardless of its intended purpose. [2] IANAL so don't know what the implications of this are when it comes to cross-border copyright enforcement. It's hard to imagine Japan rolling back this type of legal safe harbor. It's a boon for attracting AI startups from elsewhere and giving the local tech industry a competitive boost. What's to stop other venues looking to grow their tech industry to do something similar? And if they do, would it create a race to the bottom type of dynamic at the expense of copyright holders? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-17/ex-google-stability-ai-researchers-launch-ai-startup-that-takes-cues-from-fish#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-17/ex-google... [2] https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-explained/ https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-exp...
paulmd 3y ago
Also even if it’s ruled to be infringing, these current models aren’t going to go away. And given the additional high-quality training material this allows, it’s fairly likely these models will have an ongoing advantage in quality of output. So now you’ve divided the world into those who use the best tech, and those who are not allowed. And that is what openAI wants, they’re betting courts are going to rule that however tainted the source, that we can’t put lightning back into the bottle.

Pannoniae 3y ago

Or on the converse: if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. This is a plausible path to "drop copyright entirely", just like encryption was dropped as an export-controlled technology in the late 90s. (remember the 40-bit "international" SSL?) OpenAI etc. have huge amounts of money behind them, they very well have a fighting chance in court to defend their usage of scraping the internet.

pimterry 3y ago
> if those industries are unviable without copyright protection, they could go away entirely. These creative industries include all of software development, music, TV, movies, books, media, art, etc. You do technically solve the problem of copyright by shutting all those down, but I'm not sure it's a solution anybody will vote for. If you can come up with a serious alternative though, which can sustain those creative industries without requiring copyright, now is probably the best moment in all of history to seize the day and make that happen. There's going to be a big shake-up regardless, it's the perfect chance for alternative models. Bear in mind that dropping copyright entirely doesn't just hurt Disney and Sony Music though - with no copyright the GPL and all other open-source licenses are unenforceable, anybody can copy & sell anybody else's art or design without permission, Spotify doesn't have to pay musicians even $0.01 any more, etc etc etc. It's not an easy problem.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  I don't think that no one would create new software/music/books/movies/art/etc. without copyright. Humans have done so for millenia before, they still did so in absence of copyright protections. I don't see how this is not a serious alternative - the only major losers would be the middlemen, not the artists themselves.
  - thrwayaistartup 3y ago
    > Humans have done so for millenia before This is categorically false for both software and movies. For other media, this ignores the effect of zero-effort copying.
  - CodeSgt 3y ago
    Eh, I could definitely see the artists losing. The most obvious scenario that comes to mind for me is, imagine an independent artists launching their (book/film/album/etc) and the same day someone with more resources and experience takes the work and markets it better than the OG author ever could on their own.
    - 3y ago
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
You’ve ironically stumbled upon thenphilosocial argument in favor of copyright! We do want these industries to exist. Without copyright protection in a world of zero effort reproduction, it becomes impossible to make a living this way. This the industries cease to exist. And people stop crafting anything other than the most dogshit of media and programs and writing. If you have to work a different job all day, you’re gonna have no time to make that next good song/video/etc.
- zb3 3y ago
  But I don't want them to exist, I want to find content that is created because people (who earn money different way) enjoy producing it.
- 8note 3y ago
  Kickstarter does quite well, as does patreon. Eg. If team cherry didn't have savings from selling hollow knight, I'd pitch in money for them to work on silk song. The modern small artist doesn't even get paid for their art, but for things like their audience

zlg_codes 3y ago

Ruling in favor of copyright will call into question search engines and the like as well. Do you think Bing or Google are going to negotiate copying rights with the world's websites? LLMs are proving that intellectual property has a bunch of holes in it. It's been unstable ground to defend since day one. Upon what principle should we believe that one can own an idea and all performances or derivatives of it? Patents and trademarks haven't really helped as much as they were expected to. Only recently did works as far back as 1920 enter the public domain. Additionally, some LLMs gobble up source code with mixed licensing structures. How is that to be handled? Patents are about monopolies to produce something to hit a market, with the trade-off of showing everyone how it's made. Trademarks just allow you to defend your name(s). Copyright prevents other people from making money off of your work. For the rest of your life, plus 75 years. Something is broken here, alright. While we're discussing intellectual property, what about one's DNA? Is it not a performance of biology? How about your fingerprint? Fingerprints are semi-unique, so it's also a performance mark. We've seen celebrities sue for the use of their likeness, so that's recognized to some degree as well. At what point will data subjects get rights, so that when another Equifax happens, they can be bankrupted and prevented from harming the public again? Most are rhetorical, of course, but I really think generative language models are disrupting a lot of things we used to take for granted, and our models of creatorship are not refined enough to account for digital or statistical copying. Intellectual property as a concept is not compatible with a digital future.

rich_sasha 3y ago
I think there is a major qualitative difference between generative AI and search engines. Search engines index the web and point you at other people's work, along the way showing perhaps too much of that content (thus "stealing" users from the target webpage). But they don't reshuffle existing content into something apparently new and original. The "malicious" case for generative AI is that it sucks in copyrighted work (vs. indexing it), rehashes and produces something that is supposedly original, but really a sophisticated rehash of copyrighted work.
- golem14 3y ago
  ... as opposed to a human doing the same thing ? It's hard for me to reconcile that it's somehow OK for a student to write a term paper about something (e.g. "Ulysses"), Wikipedia doing the same thing, but on the other hand, not OK for chatGPT doing it.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>>"If you do allow that, the many many affected industries have catastrophic problems." That is the problem. Technically, AI should be allowed to 'read' content, it isn't hidden, and it gets mixed with other content in a 'brain' like thing. AI and Humans can both spit out a new product that is 'similar' and thus be sued on that similarity. But it can also produce endless similar variations at low cost and fast. It is the ease of creating new similar products. You could just as well prompt the AI "make a Taylor Swift song, but different enough to avoid a lawsuit". Think this is an entirely new problem that needs a new law beyond copywrite. Copywrite is not the correct law to us for fighting this. Copywrite law doesn't ban someone from reading the source altogether.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago
There’s an unbelievably vast difference between a human’s creative process and the mechanical reproduction of reweighed training data. Machines don’t create, people do.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Is there? I think you are giving too much credit to human creativity. Falling prey to the 'human exceptionalism' argument, or to the 'mysterious'. It just assumes humans are unique, or ineffable, it doesn't provide any of the 'how' it is done. Ask GPT something like "write a screen play for Othello using dialog like Tarantino, but with bit of style like Baz Luhrmann". It produces something pretty creative. And if you say, well it is just combining what came before, that also applies to humans, there are no new ideas. Humans being complicated doesn't mean AI wont catch up. Its just time/money/engineering at this point. In Nature, why would Carbon be more holy than Silicon.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  Why is the human mind not also a machine?

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

> AI consuming copyrighted data and producing an output has to be considered a derivative work (or indeed, the model itself will be considered a derivative work) or IP protections are effectively broken. It’s not derivative work though. First, a human didn’t create it, so copyright protections don’t exist on its output. Machines don’t enjoy copyright protections, people do. It’s mechanically copying and reproducing part of its input data set. Making a tool that regurgitates others’ copyrighted IP is going to been seen as aiding mass copyright violations. Exactly like how Napster got sued: they’re holding a bunch of material they shouldn’t be. The only new twist to this case is the data is encoded in a transformer’s weights. This should be correctly seen as the same as having encrypted copyrighted data using a lossy algorithm.

dilap 3y ago
Seems unfair as we converge on AGI. If I memorize the lyrics to a song, is that a copyright violation? The lyrics are encoded in the arrangement of my neurons, after all.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I don't know why people use these analogies. No person can memorize terabytes worth of lyrics.
  - arthurcolle 3y ago
    What if someone could? What if rainman could
    - justinclift 3y ago
      What if rainman could fly too? I guess rainman wouldn't need an airport for short haul trips. So, "good on rainman". Now, for the rest of us...
  - dilap 3y ago
    Does that invalidate the analogy? The point I'm trying to make is if you rule these behaviors illegal, then you're necessarily making intelligent AI illegal, because humans are capable of the same behaviors.

b33j0r 3y ago

Short of a police state, how would you enforce this? This has napster -> subscription spotify energy. But the only people happy about that are Spotify and people who found it distasteful to download music illegally. There just wasn’t a consumer-friendly option for a while, so the black market was the only market. So. The enforcement mechanism is what… a scary DMCA letter? (There will definitely be a stupid DCAIA in the next congress)

bewaretheirs 3y ago
The copyright holder gets a share of ownership in any AI model derived from its work, and thus a share of any resulting revenue.
- ignite 3y ago
  All 10 million of them?
  - bewaretheirs 3y ago
    Any large corporation likely has more individual shareholders than that (particularly when you include indirect ownership via mutual funds).
- b33j0r 3y ago
  Even Taylor Swift and Elton John get micropennies per play. In an (unrealizable) regime where all copyright holders are compensated, that would include picopennies for the discussion we’ve had!

jandrese 3y ago

I will be interested to see how the copyright suit plays out with Taylor Swift vs. Guy who asked an AI to make a new song that sounds like a generic Taylor Swift song.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kromem 3y ago

Not really. Copyright largely remains about the PRODUCTION of content, not about the CONSUMPTION of it. Someone who grew up reading Marvel comics being able to make new original comics in that style is perfectly ok. That same person perfectly replicating an Avengers comic is going to land them in hot water. The focus on infringement really needs to be on what LLMs produce, not their training. There definitely needs to be something like a secondary pass added which checks output against a vectordb of the training set to avoid too close derivative IP outputs (and ideally checks for jailbreaking or inappropriate content at the same time). Any production services would need to subscribe to a service like that to stave off litigation on infringement, much like how the oft repeated complaints regarding YouTube copyright infringement eventually dissipated as content tagging was added (and shifted to complaints over too broad application of it). A generative AI model having read the NYT but producing new original news articles in the style of a newspaper is a very weird argument for infringement. A human driven service or an automated one that takes current NYT articles and summarizes or reworks them, publishing itself and cutting them out of the ad revenue is more problematic (but also widespread already and generally considered protected). Services which exactly duplicate their articles would be more clearly infringement, but there's no evidence that's even a fraction of what ChatGPT is doing. Criminalizing training would set back whatever county did so significantly in global competition for a critical new economic (and defense) trend, and would ultimately only be a minor stop gap for copyright holders as you'd simply see a market for secondhand generated content from foreign models trained on copyrighted data but then producing content that was itself not copyrightable but could be used to train domestic models.

andrewjl 3y ago

> Problematic though copyright laws are, I see no world where all those protections go away any time soon, and so if the courts don't agree to protect copyright already in this scenario, then it will eventually be legislated to make that happen. AI consuming copyrighted data and producing an output has to be considered a derivative work (or indeed, the model itself will be considered a derivative work) or IP protections are effectively broken. There's a headline out today about several ex-Google Brain engineers, including a co-author of “Attention Is All You Need”, setting up shop in Tokyo. [1] That's not a coincidence. > Amid rising questions about the fairness and legality of using publicly available information to train AI models, Japan affirmed that machine learning engineers can use any data they find. > What’s new: A Japanese official clarified that the country’s law lets AI developers train models on works that are protected by copyright. > How it works: In testimony before Japan’s House of Representatives, cabinet minister Keiko Nagaoka explained that the law allows machine learning developers to use copyrighted works whether or not the trained model would be used commercially and regardless of its intended purpose. [2] IANAL so don't know what the implications of this are when it comes to cross-border copyright enforcement. It's hard to imagine Japan rolling back this type of legal safe harbor. It's a boon for attracting AI startups from elsewhere and giving the local tech industry a competitive boost. What's to stop other venues looking to grow their tech industry to do something similar? And if they do, would it create a race to the bottom type of dynamic at the expense of copyright holders? [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-17/ex-google-stability-ai-researchers-launch-ai-startup-that-takes-cues-from-fish#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-17/ex-google... [2] https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-explained/ https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/japan-ai-data-laws-exp...

paulmd 3y ago

Also even if it’s ruled to be infringing, these current models aren’t going to go away. And given the additional high-quality training material this allows, it’s fairly likely these models will have an ongoing advantage in quality of output. So now you’ve divided the world into those who use the best tech, and those who are not allowed. And that is what openAI wants, they’re betting courts are going to rule that however tainted the source, that we can’t put lightning back into the bottle.