zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
The way to view this kind of parasitism is how we look at patent trolls. When you look at the RIAA/MPAA lawsuits, while I don't agree with them, at least file sharing was basically a canonical form of copyright infringement.

With LLMs we have an aspect of a text corpus that the creators were not using (the language patterns) and had no plans for or even idea that it could be used, and then when someone comes along and uses it, not to reproduce anything but to provide minute iterative feedback in training, they run in to try and extract some money. It's parasitism. It doesn't benefit society, it only benefits the troll, there is no reason courts should enforce it.

Someone should try and show that a NYT article can be generated autoregressively and argue it's therefore not copyrightable.

>>andy99+s8
But it’s theirs, they created it and should therefore benefit from it. I’m honestly shocked at how much these companies are getting away with. It’s piracy on a massive scale.

You can get a little discombobulated reading the comments from the nerds / subject idiots on this site.

>>ametra+Yc
It's "theirs"? The copyright monopoly was created to advance art and science, anything else is a mere perversion. So who are in the moral right, those advancing science by developing humanity's literal pinnacle of science, artficial intelligence, or those trying to hold the development back for their own commercial interest?

Mind you, Google books, literally just text from copyrighted books published for everyone online, was ruled "fair use", due to it's benefit to humanity.