> But we don't get sued for our influences. Only for what we output. Like humans, the model has the capacity for both high-level abstractions that could be des

> But we don't get sued for our influences. Only for what we output. Like humans, the model has the capacity for both high-level abstractions that could be described as merely "influence" but also it has the very-specific minute details that when reproduced in art are described as "infringement." While I agree that some of what the model learns could/should be described as Fair Use, it's not courts strong suits to create tests for NN graphs to determine just how well abstracted things are. So, to be safe, they're likely to lean towards "just license the content." With billions of dollars invested in AI, I wonder if lobbying could influence copyright legislation to tip the copyright duration a little back towards sanity. I have a great deal of sympathy for artists who feel like their work is stolen. But I think there's an inevitable future where these tools are powerful and commonplace. So IMO we should focus on compensating artists for their work, especially so if they're used to train ML models.