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.
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/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13...
As for "what would Google do with all these book copies anyway if they can't make it public?", that has now been answered more directly than ever.
Copying is not theft.
Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more;
that’s what copying’s for. My code was AGPL.
OpenAI can go to h..l
A lot of red-blue state misunderstandings are based on that, as are ones across US racial subgroups. Ditto for lawyer-engineer conversations.
"Theft" has pretty different meanings depending on whom you're speaking to. Legal jargon here is quite different from business, which can be quite different from popular. That's okay!
1) I take something away from you. You have less of it as a result. Copying is not theft.
2) I deprive you of something, such as exclusive use of your land (e.g. by trespassing) or failing to follow through on a contract. Copying is theft.
Both of those are used by different communities, who both become angry at the other.
This is a semantic argument. Most members of both groups believe that there are times when copying is wrong, and are split on when that is.
However, to group #1, "stealing" and "theft" is a highly offensive term. It's much like saying "You raped me up the ___ when you didn't pay my contractor bill on time" or other hyperboles. Not paying my bill was wrong, but it also wasn't rape. It devalues rape, insults you, and is imprecise. You should use the precise "copyright violation" which describes exactly what happened.
To group #2, NOT calling it theft is offensive, since it devalues the costs to businesses and creators of copyright violations. Whether you agree with them or not, they have certain rights under the law, and picking-and-choosing which laws to follow is wrong (especially when it's self-serving).
Because the two groups mean different things by the same words, they can never hold a rational conversation with each other, and become offended when they hear the other group speak. It's how we polarize. It's unfortunate, since there's an important discussion to be had about the limits and enforcement of copyright and patents, which really should start with the copyright clause in the constitution, and when it helps versus impedes progress and economic growth. That's a discussion possible to have analytically and rationally.