4 ms·
> And if those creators were instead to try to introduce legislation, the AI companies would risk losing access to content from small creators without the means
by blibble 3y ago
> And if those creators were instead to try to introduce legislation, the AI companies would risk losing access to content from small creators without the means to sue too.
this is the point of a class action suit isn't it?
if it turns out training isn't fair use then Microsoft/Google/OpenAI will suddenly have class action suits for billions if not trillions of damages against them
($150,000 damages per willful infringement, after all)
- gentleman11 3y agoHave you never seen the outcome of a class action? They’re all slaps in the wrist, less than speeding tickets, and the action members get like a free hotdog or red bull as compensation if they’re lucky
- blibble 3y agoyes, the lawyers always clean up the aim would be to make training on copyrighted material legally toxic and render all existing datasets and trained weights unlawful the damages are simply a bonus
- __loam 3y agoYeah that's the real goal. You can make it impossible for big corporations to use this technology because it paints a huge target on them while ignoring the de facto state of open source models that are impossible to enforce regulation against. Best of both worlds maybe.
- blibble 3y agoexactly it's like patent trolling, but with no expensive patent required
- harry8 3y agoHow do you prove a set of weights was trained on, in part, any dataset? "We bought these weights in good faith from Digitus Tertius corp of bermuda."
- blibble 3y agotrap phrases deal with that case very easily
- TylerE 3y agoThe tobacco companies paid out $246B (That's b as in billions) in that class action.