Big Tech might actually prefer it: On one end, they lose a whole lot of money by having to license scraping a bunch of sources, but on the other hand, no open s

Big Tech might actually prefer it: On one end, they lose a whole lot of money by having to license scraping a bunch of sources, but on the other hand, no open source model, and no small company, has a prayer of building a model legally. It's not even down to the NYT and such: Think facebook, or reddit, suddenly being able to charge others for their massive amount of data, while they force anyone posting there to make their content usable for their own training to post there at all. Imagine a world where, say, Microsoft buys the times, just because it's better for them to not just have the training data, but to tell every competitor to get bent if they want a license. 'Google buys Disney for the training data'. If AI is that useful, and we make copyright that strong, what we might see is ailing media companies being bought out by tech. Ultimately IP law is about the tradeoff of more original content and more usefulness for the world, and AI massively changes where the center of balance is. So I don't expect a ruling for the NYT to remain the law of the land for very long, just due to economic pressures. Ultimately it doesn't matter which side people like aesthetically: If an AI trained with no regard for copyright is that much more useful than one that quotes every source and pays it some money, then piracy will ensure. If it doesn't really help, then copyright will keep being very strong. It's not even a matter of countries, but hackers. Would Aaron Swartz, working on his own LLM, pay for copyright dues or not? Because there's enough people in tech with that mindset that we'll end up with LLMs trained by a group that thinks like he did. We will have laws, people in places that aren't subjected to our laws, and pirates. It's now it always works.