I think we should have a rule that says if a LLM company invokes fair use on the training inputs then the outputs are public domain.
charonn0
joined 2 years ago
Yeah, the headline makes it sound like they had cameras in the toilets or something.
If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.
If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.
Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.
I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.
I just thought "pirate-friendly" was concise.
tl;dr: The users' comments say that a certain ISP is pirate-friendly. Studios want to use the comments against the ISP (not the users).
The fact that you assume this would be a shocking or objectionable suggestion speaks volumes.
If you believe Trump, yes.
So in reality, no, not in any sense.
Sounds like a fatal problem. That's a shame.
Which is exactly why the output of an AI trained on copyrighted inputs should not be copyrightable. It should not become the private property of whichever company owns the language model. That would be bad for a lot more reasons than the potential for laundering open source code.
The part that you're apparently having trouble understanding is that a language model is not a human mind and a human mind is not a language model.
Cybersecurity != Safety Critical