I'm not saying search engines will be considered the same as LLMs, but given that LLMs are pushing the tolerances of Fair Use, should that get limited through l

I'm not saying search engines will be considered the same as LLMs, but given that LLMs are pushing the tolerances of Fair Use, should that get limited through litigation or legislation, the things search engines get away with like caching or summarizing, AMP pages, etc may cease to be legal and search engines may have to adopt less rich means of communicating relevancy, perhaps by showing the keywords that match or something else indirect but still true about a source, without pulling content straight from it. As it stands right now, yes, Fair Use. But where do we draw the line? That line's been blurry for a while. Mostly limited to no more than 30 seconds of a performance, and no more than what's needed to quote literary works. Not sure about lyrics. The issue is on some level, most things we create are derivative. Someone had to have the idea first, but once an idea is unleashed upon the world, it seems very difficult and unwieldy to put the genie back in the bottle. I'm not really pro-LLM since it enables business to leech off of FOSS even more efficiently. The disruption of LLMs seems to be accelerating our philosophical re-examining of copyright and licensing terms in FOSS. We will inevitably need a GPL in the future that disallows remixing via LLM or other generative text algos, due mostly because ensuring all of a result is freely usable is not easy. Limitations could be built in to only 'fetch' code licensed under permissive terms, like MIT or BSD, but the tendency of these models to 'hallucinate' means you really cannot know the legal standing of LLM-generated code, at present.