Your link isn't very clear, but I think your are talking about the "clean room design" strategy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.

Your link isn't very clear, but I think your are talking about the "clean room design" strategy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design The way this works is they way many of us are arguing that AI and copyright should work. Vieiwing (or training on) copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement. What can be copyright infringement is using an employee who has viewed (or a model that was trained on) copyrighted work to create a duplication of that work. In most of the examples of infringing output that I've seen, the prompt is pretty explicit in its request to duplicate copyrighted material. Models that produce copyrighted content when not explicitly asked for will have trouble getting traction among users who are concerned about the risk of infringement (such the examples you listed.) I also see this approach opening an opportunity for models that acquire specific licenses for the content they train on that would grant licenses to the users of the model to duplicate some or all of the copyrighted works. The responsibility for how a model is used should rest primarily on the user, not the model trainers.