4 ms·
With a big asterik-- "customers... must not attempt to generate infringing materials..." It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infrin
by fsdavcaa 3y ago
With a big asterik--
"customers... must not attempt to generate infringing materials..."
It hinges on what *Microsoft* decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. You'd like it to mean that it only excludes use when you're doing something you know would infringe copyright, like "reproduce the entire half life 2 source code." But who knows.
- gumballindie 3y agoThat's just legal speak for "any copyright infringement is your fault". The question though about microsoft stealing people's code and reselling it still stands.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> legal speak for "any copyright infringement is your fault" Proving intent is difficult. This basically means if you have emails in which someone describes their work as copyright laundering, Microsoft can use that to get out of indemnifying you.
- crooked-v 3y agoYeah, that's a truck-sized loophole right there.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> It hinges on what Microsoft decides "attempting to generate infringing materials" means. No, ultimately, it hinges on what a court enforcing the commitment believes “attempting to generate infringing materials” means. (OTOH. it also means Microsoft ha an even bigger incentive to use its lobbying power to assure that the law is such that liability rarely occurs with the use of these tools.)
- tuukkah 3y agoDoes Microsoft assume liability to support us in court over that question as well?
- visarga 3y agoI think their ML teams built a decent copyright filter and now they "productise" it.
- rcme 3y agoThe meaning is somewhere between your interpretation and the GPs. Even if a court would enforce Microsoft’s promise, you’d still need to sue Microsoft to compel action in the event of a disagreement and that would be expensive and you’re generally on the hook for your own legal costs when you sue.
- frognumber 3y agoHonestly, I trust Microsoft here. I don't trust them to compete fairly. I don't trust them as an employer. I wouldn't them to not do corrupt things around national politics. I wouldn't want to be their partner in any meaningful project. I don't trust them around a lot of other things. But one thing they do really well is reliable, long-term sustainable B2B. I do trust them as a business customer. If they exploited a loophole like that, their reputation would implode. I don't use Google Cloud Platform because they regularly screw over customers. I trust AWS and Azure because they don't. The cost of paying for an infringement is likely a lot lower than the cost of losing that trust.
- SkyPuncher 3y agoI don’t think that’s terribly shocking or limiting. If you’re using an LLM to answer questions from your company documents it may inadvertently generate pre-trained copyright material.
- andybak 3y agoAh. The comment that really should be at the top.