3 ms·
This is explicitly for training, not for the distribution of copyrighted material. Courts aren't stupid.
by knome 3y ago
This is explicitly for training, not for the distribution of copyrighted material. Courts aren't stupid.
- munk-a 3y agoI'd clarify that in my example the screening would be of the potentially random output of a model... just one that was only trained by watching a specific blockbuster movie and thus extremely likely to just reproduce the source material. My example is obviously an extreme but it gets at the core of the NYT case here in the states... I think it's a bad thing if we allow models to output data nearly indistinguishable from copyrighted data it was trained on. W.r.t to the NYT case - It's my opinion that it's completely reasonable to use a corpus of vetted english literature like the NYT as a way to train your model to comprehend language - but if the model also begins to echo the contents of those articles then that may be a serious breech of the NYT's right's to monetize their work.