>Second, if the crime was the act of scraping then it’s directly comparable. But if the crime is publishing the data for free, that’s quite different from train

>Second, if the crime was the act of scraping then it’s directly comparable. But if the crime is publishing the data for free, that’s quite different from training AI to learn from the data while not being able to reproduce the exact content. They often do reproduce the exact context; in fact it's quite a probable output >“Probabilistic plagiarism” is not what’s happening or even aligned with the definition of plagiarism (which matters if we’re talking about legal consequences). What’s happening is that it’s learning patterns from the content that it can apply to future tasks. That's what I think people wish would happen. Sometime they have been shown to learn procedural knowledge from the training data but mostly it's approximate retrieval.