zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
The arguments about being able to mimic New York Times “style” are weak, but the fact that they got it to emit verbatim NY Times content seems bad for OpenAI:

> As outlined in the lawsuit, the Times alleges OpenAI and Microsoft’s large language models (LLMs), which power ChatGPT and Copilot, “can generate output that recites Times content verbatim

>>Aurorn+84
Arguing whether it can is not a useful discussion. You can absolutely train a net to memorize and recite text. As these models get more powerful they will memorize more text. The critical thing is how hard is it to make them recite copyrighted works. Critically the question is, did the developers put reasonable guardrails in place to prevent it?

If a person with a very good memory reads an article, they only violate copyright if they write it out and share it, or perform the work publicly. If they have a reasonable understanding of the law they won't do so. However a malicious person could absolutely trick or force them to produce the copyrighted work. The blame in that case however is not on the person who read and recited the article but on the person who tricked them.

That distinction is one we're going to have to codify all over again for AI.

>>iandan+rb
I hate to do this but this then becomes a "only bad people with a gun kill people" argument. Even most but the most ardent gun rights advocates in that scenario think they shouldn't be extended to very powerful weapons like bombs or nuclear weapons. In this situation then, this logic would be "sure this item allows a person to kill thousands or millions of people, but really the only person at fault in such a situation is the one who presses the button." This ignores the harm done and only focuses on who gets the fault, as if all discourse on law is determining who is a bad guy or a good guy in a movie script.

The general prescription (that I do agree not everyone accepts) society has come up with is we relegate control of some of these weapons to governments and outright ban others (like chemical weapons, biological weapons, and such) through treaties. If LLMs can cause so much damage and their use can be abused so widely, you have to stop focusing on questions about whether a user is culpable or not and move to consider whether their wide use is okay and shouldn't be controlled.

>>noober+lA2
This is a lawsuit, not a call for regulatory action. They are claiming there are guilty parties under existing law. Culpability is the point.

>>iandan+2t4
No you're right. The reply I made concerns the logic itself especially if this justification is used to ward off regulation in the future. For the suit in question, culpability in fact central.