3 ms·

There are good arguments for the copyright infringement belonging to the user, not the model maker, in this thread. One issue with that is that there is not a

by Hugsun 3y ago

There are good arguments for the copyright infringement belonging to the user, not the model maker, in this thread. One issue with that is that there is not a reliable way to determine if copyright is being infringed. Even if models could be used responsibly, there might not be a reasonable expectation that most people will. If infringement is so easy and avoiding it relatively hard. I'm not sure what legal prescriptions should be made on this basis, but it's an interesting thought.

yokem55 3y ago
Bit torrent clients are almost exclusively used for copyright infringement. Yet they are perfectly legal to develop and distribute. On the flip side, operating a company premised around easy copyright infringement was ruled to be illegal (Napster). Where we might end up is in a situation where it is legal to train a model. Legal to produce software for using the model to generate content. Legal to distribute all of the above. But offering a standing service that does the above and is capable of creating infringing work is illegal. Great news for llama hobbyists. Bad news for ChatGPT.