zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
Broadly summarizing.

This is OK and fair use: Training LLMs on copyrighted work, since it's transformative.

This is not OK and not fair use: pirating data, or creating a big repository of pirated data that isn't necessarily for AI training.

Overall seems like a pretty reasonable ruling?

>>3PS+V1
But those training the LLMs are still using the works, and not just to discuss them, which I think is the point of fair use doctrine. I guess I fail to see how it's any different from me using it in some other way? If I wanted to write a play very loosely inspired by Blood Meridian, it might be transformative, but that doesn't justify me pirating the book.

I tend to think copyright should be extremely limited compared to what it is now, but to me the logic of this ruling is illogical other than "it's ok for a corporation to use lots of works without permission but not for an individual to use a single work without permission." Maybe if they suddenly loosened copyright enforcement for everyone I might feel differently.

"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror." (An admittedly hyperbolic comparison, but similar idea.)

>>derbOa+H6
The analogy to training is not writing a play based on the work. It's more like reading (experiencing) the work and forming memories in your brain, which you can access later.

I'm allowed to hear a copyrighted tune, and even whistle it later for my own enjoyment, but I can't perform it for others without license.

>>tantal+1f
This is nonsense, in my opinion. You aren't "hearing" anything. You are literally creating a work, in this case, the model, derived from another work.

People need to stop anthropomorphizing neural networks. It's a software and a software is a tool and a tool is used by a human.

>>AlienR+9r
It is easy to dismiss, but the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff to prove that training a model is substantially different than the human mind. Good luck with that.

>>tantal+Ct
That makes no sense as a default assumption. It's like saying FSD is like a human driver. If it's a person, why doesn't it represent itself in court? What wages is it being paid? What are the labor rights of AI? How is it that the AI is only human-like when it's legally convenient?

What makes far more sense is saying that someone, a human being, took copyrighted data and fed it into a program that produces variations of the data it was fed. This is no different from a photoshop filter, and nobody would ever need to argue in court that a photoshop filter is not a human being.