Ruling in favor of copyright will call into question search engines and the like as well. No, they won't. Search engines have already fought and won this battl

Ruling in favor of copyright will call into question search engines and the like as well. No, they won't. Search engines have already fought and won this battle on fair use grounds because they make use of the copyrighted content differently than LLMs do. It's an absolutely fundamental distinction. Patents and trademarks haven't really helped as much as they were expected to. Patents have been a thing for nearly a millenia; Britain's patent system is credited with giving it the technological edge over its Medieval and post-Medieval competitors for world domination. Similarly, the U.S. patent system has been credited with the U.S.' technological prowess for the past 2 centuries. Only recently did works as far back as 1920 enter the public domain. Nothing is stopping artists from releasing works into the public domain during their lifetimes. That would of course would mean other people economically exploiting their works however they wished without any input or control from the artist...which is generally why most artists haven't done that. 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 This is either a bad-faith argument. DNA and fingerprints are tangible things created without any sort of intellectual input. Therefore, by definition not intellectual property. We've seen celebrities sue for the use of their likeness, so that's recognized to some degree as well. This is another bad-faith argument. Celebrity likenesses are intangible property but are not intellectual property and are not afforded the same protections. I really think generative language models are disrupting a lot of things we used to take for granted LLMs so far have disrupted student papers. And that's pretty much it.