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
Agreed. If I memorize a book and I am deployed into the world to talk about what I memorized that is not a violation of copyright. Which is reasonable logically because essentially this is what an LLM is doing.

>>ninety+Nc
It might be different if you are a commercial product which couldn’t have been created without incorporating the contents of all those books.

Humans, animals, hardware and software are treated differently by law because they have different constraints and capabilities.

>>layer8+he
But a commercial product is reaching parity with human capability.

Let's be real, Humans have special treatment (more special than animals as we can eat and slaughter animals but not other humans) because WE created the law to serve humans.

So in terms of being fair across the board LLMs are no different. But there's no harm in giving ourselves special treatment.

>>ninety+Di
>So in terms of being fair across the board LLMs are no different

Why should "fair" factor into it? The LLMs are not humans, thus they have no rights, and treating them fairly shouldn't come into it. Stop anthropomorphizing linear algebra ffs.