3 ms·
> Meanwhile, open source models and datasets are left out to dry, as they could still be sued. How come? If the artists lose the lawsuit, it's probably because
by smoldesu 3y ago
> Meanwhile, open source models and datasets are left out to dry, as they could still be sued.
How come? If the artists lose the lawsuit, it's probably because AI vendors could prove fair use. From where I'm standing, it looks like it would leave everyone on fairly equal (albeit non-commercial) footing. If anything, it might give Open models an implicit advantage for being non-commercial and inherently novel.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoOpen datasets may still make the trainers more vulnerable, as I don't think the plaintifs even have proof OpenAI is training on full copyrighted material directly. But even if thats not the case, small time trainers do not always have the resources to fight a takedown. This could given large entities like OpenAI an advantage over smaller trainers.
- smoldesu 3y agoMaterially, sure. OpenAI has every advantage over the smaller party. The entire point of this article though is that banding together the smaller parties has big consequences. By forcing a judgement, either side could get an undesirable outcome. If a precedent is set, fair use or not, it would at least benefit the little guy and big guy alike to know where the law stands. From a purely legislative standpoint, I don't see how the needle moves further towards OpenAI's camp by clarifying the law.