3 ms·

which laws are broken exactly? it's not remotely settled law that "training an NN = copyright infringement"

• noitpmeder 3y ago
  The training isn't the issue per se, it's the regurgitation of verbatim text (or close enough to be immediately identifiable) within a for-profit product. Worse still that the regurgitation is done without attribution.
• LargeTomato 3y ago
  The legal argument, which I'm sure you are very well aware of, is that training a model on data, reorganizing, and then presenting that data as your own is copyright infringement.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • professor_x 3y ago
    I don't think OP is arguing in bad faith.The fact is it's unclear what laws this legal argument is supported by.
    • LargeTomato 3y ago
      Agreed, it is unclear. It's also a very commonly discussed issue with generative AI and there's been a significant amount of buzz around this. Is the NYT testing the legal waters? Maybe. Will this case set precedent? Yes. Is this a silly, random, completely unhinged case to bring? No.
  • munchler 3y ago
    Can you elaborate a bit more? That’s actually just a claim, not a legal argument. Copyright law allows for transformative uses that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Are LLM’s not transformative?
• anamexis 3y ago
  Right, hence the lawsuit. They allege that the Copyright Act is the law that was broken.
• zztop44 3y ago
  No, we’re seeing the first steps of it (maybe) becoming settled law.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]