3 ms·
The issue is the output, not the input. If LLMs were just learning from their training set and generating novel output, the same way a human might, then there'd
by HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
The issue is the output, not the input. If LLMs were just learning from their training set and generating novel output, the same way a human might, then there'd be no problem.
The issue is that generative AI - both for images as well as text - in effect memorize sources as well as learn from from, and can end up regenerating training sources verbatim (or with minimal changes in case of images).
I don't think any US court is going to accept "yes your honor, we copied this copyright material, but we used a TOOL to do it" as a way to avoid copyright.
- badcppdev 3y agoI don't understand your point because humans generate novel output AND memorise and regurgitate source material. I believe human artists consciously adjust their output to avoid copying previous artists too closely. And sometimes they choose to copy very closely or exactly. Obviously the same feature can be implemented as an option on generative AI systems.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoMy point is that Japan can claim whatever they want about copyright not applying to LLM inputs (training data), but it makes no difference. Copyright infringement will be judged on what they output. Of course, many outputs will be novel enough to avoid copyright claims, but not all, same as the output of a human. No doubt generative AI systems could be built to self-police and not emit any tentative outputs that are too close to training samples, but that's certainly not the way they are today, and it's not clear from the article that started this topic that this issue is addressed in any way by the Japanese law, which is just about training data.