3 ms·
If using the work as training data was lawful (which hasn't been always the case as we know today) I tend to agree with you, but it might depend: creating an al
by birn559 1y ago
If using the work as training data was lawful (which hasn't been always the case as we know today) I tend to agree with you, but it might depend: creating an alteration of the work might be prohibited altogether or you might need to give proper credit to the original authors and that might already be violated when you present certain output to a user.
In general, the user is responsible to obey the license of the original work. The problem is that the LLM doed not know on which works its output (mostly) is based on. So in theory, no output for which copyright laws might apply should be used whatsoever.
- Earw0rm 1y agoIt's not cut and dried in that way ("certain output"), in many models, any one piece of training data can influence any number of weights and potential outputs, and it's difficult or impossible to say which output was influenced to what extent by which input. A drop of blood falls in a lake.. which bit of lake now contains blood?
- still_grokking 1y ago> the user is responsible to obey the license of the original work The user is in this case the "AI" company. They already violated law almost certainly by copying stuff from the net in the first place. (Almost certainly as it by now does not look like this was fair use, and there is no other means to make legal what they did.)