> This is just a hit piece which tries to frame scraping whole internet as-is as fair-use, because it's profitable for the AI companies, that's all. No, the Ma

> This is just a hit piece which tries to frame scraping whole internet as-is as fair-use, because it's profitable for the AI companies, that's all. No, the Matthew Lane's argument (the author of the article being Matthew Lane) is that the AI model as a whole cannot be ex-ante assumed to be an infringement on the copyrights to one or works in the training set. Copyright is about the actual works, and infringement is about the similarity between actual outputs by models and existing works by humans. My argument is that similarity of new works (including AI model outputs) to actual works (not to non-existing works, existing styles, or theoretical aggregations of multiple works) is a prerequisite to infringement. From an article about the substantial similarity test in the US [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.[1][3] In order to get an infringing output, the user usually has to include a reference to an existing author or an existing work in the prompt. Sometimes that's not the case (which I've worried about with respect to Copilot), but in order to damn the model as a whole, you would have to establish that in over some percentage of cases the model produces infringing outputs for prompts which don't reference a particular author (whether individual or collective), a particular work, or a style strongly associated with a single or a few authors. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity