2 ms·

That hasn’t been tested in court. But even if that were true, it’s a moot point because we are talking about the copyrighted content that the models were train

That hasn’t been tested in court. But even if that were true, it’s a moot point because we are talking about the copyrighted content that the models were trained on. Hence the point the OP made that if Microsoft really wanted to reassure people then they’d promote models that were trained on Microsoft’s own code rather than handwave away these concerns with gestures of assuming theoretical liability.

hunter2_ 3y ago
Ah, ok. As for testing in court, that will be useful, but a rather official source says "created by a human author" [0] in defining the notion of copyright, which I assume is paraphrasing actual law, which I assume a judge would interpret similarly. However, I will concede that it's conceivable that if a human authors a work that then itself authors another work, the second work could potentially be attributed to the human for purposes of copyright eligibility. [0] https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/