3 ms·
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 copy
by 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 agoI 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 agoAgreed, 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 agoCan 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?