40 ms·
The laws around training an LLM on publicly accessible IP have never been developed and haven't been developed, so the judge has to decide from common law. It's
by m00x 3y ago
The laws around training an LLM on publicly accessible IP have never been developed and haven't been developed, so the judge has to decide from common law. It's the same issue as crypto <> SEC. Companies ask lawmakers to set the rules, but they drag their feet, they release their products, and end up getting sued.
It has been decided already in more technically knowledgeable countries that training on data is not the same as copying the data. It's obvious if you understand the concept of data compression, but judges don't always see it that way.
- anon84873628 3y agoOr that we already train humans on copyrighted data and then employ that human intelligence for commercial use. You can argue that AI is a categorically different scale that requires special regulation to protect our societal values (and I think I do) but that is a different claim and implementation than copyright enforcement.
- petre 3y agoIt should be viewed as derivarive work. It equally applies to humans. It shouldn't be classified as fair use because the works have been used in whole to train the model. 'A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.' (US Copyright Act of 1976)
- hnfong 3y agoYou’re saying after a student learns physics from a copyrighted textbook they have to pay the textbook publisher royalties to work as a physicist?