zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
I think the train has left the station and the ship has sailed. I'm not sure it's possible to put this genie back in the bottle. I had stuff stolen by OpenAI too, and I felt bad about it (and even send them a nasty legal letter when it could output my creative work almost verbatim), but I think at this point, the legal landscape needs to somehow adjust. The Copyright Clause in the US Constitution is clear:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Blocking LLMs on the basis of copyright infringement does NOT promote progress in science and the useful arts. I don't think copyright is a useful basis to block LLMs.

They do need to be regulated, and quickly, but that regulatory regime should be something different. Not copyright. The concept of OpenAI before it became a frankenmonster for-profit was good. Private failed, and we now need public.

>>blagie+z5
>the ship has sailed

Certainly, but debating the spirit behind copyright or even "how to regulate AI" (a vast topic, to put it mildly) is only one possible route these lawsuits could take.

I suspect that ultimately the winner is going to be business first (of course in the name of innovation), and the law second, and ethics coming last -- if Google can scan 129 million books [1] and store them without even a slap on the wrist [2], OpenAI and anyone of that size can most surely continue to do what they're doing. This lawsuit and others like it are just the drama of 'due process'.

[1] https://booksearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/books-of-world-stand... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9AD0TT/