> the original argument that there is so much worth in the model that we need to create new IP laws to handle it No one argued this, to my knowledge. I think t

> the original argument that there is so much worth in the model that we need to create new IP laws to handle it No one argued this, to my knowledge. I think that there might be a need for new copyright laws, but the alternative in my mind is that we decide there's not a lot of worth there, meaning that we do nothing, and what OpenAI/Meta/MS/Google/Anthropic/etc are doing is simply de jure illegal. The statement I made about LLMs having major flaws is a point in support of this alternative. > Training data should be for the model to learn language and facts, and referencing or summarizing the material directly seems to be out of scope of that. I strongly disagree, as your prompt can (and for a certain type of user, often does) contain explicit or implicit references to training data. For example: * Explicit: “What is the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee?” * Implicit: “How might Albert Einstein write about recent development X in physics research?”