"The United States has a strong interest in continuing to develop a robust and competitive artificial intelligence industry that sets the standard for the practice and procedure of AI use globally," the brief reads.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be as upset if the playing field was level. Alright, you can slurp up and remix the world’s works, but so can anyone, for any reason, for free. Personally, I think use restrictions should only target commercial use, but I’m sure that’s a much more divisive topic. We have a law that is not being applied to those most likely to abuse it at scale.
Precendent was already there. Copyright has never been enforceable when it’s transformative. Collage is legal, so was training neural nets before the copyright industry saw money in it.
The output of the training, the model (LLM) itself, is transformative. I’m not talking about the output of the llm nor was the person I was responding to.
The pirating issue has nothing to do with the current lawsuit (the New York Times one mentioned in the article) nor did the government mention it in the current context.
That being said, I’m a pirate in my personal life, and I also think it’s kind of a necessary evil when it comes to building SOTA models. I wish we had a copy left solution to it, so you can use pirated data but need to open source it, so open source has a fighting chance and big AI can buy it if they want it. I’m okay with openAI and anthropic getting brought into court about it I guess, but the legislation ends up being market capture in their favor in the end.
I understand the issues though, very “rule for thee but not for me” currently.
Precedent that copyright is not legally enforceable
Yeah, I wouldn’t be as upset if the playing field was level. Alright, you can slurp up and remix the world’s works, but so can anyone, for any reason, for free. Personally, I think use restrictions should only target commercial use, but I’m sure that’s a much more divisive topic. We have a law that is not being applied to those most likely to abuse it at scale.
Precedent that laws don’t apply to billionaires.
Crime is legal now.
Got it, so then they’re outlaws and I can do whatever I want to them.
Precendent was already there. Copyright has never been enforceable when it’s transformative. Collage is legal, so was training neural nets before the copyright industry saw money in it.
No one is saying they output of an llm is copyright (this is a different debate).
What people are talking about is they stole copyright work. They pirated from torrent sights mass amounts of data. That’s the violation at problem.
The output of the training, the model (LLM) itself, is transformative. I’m not talking about the output of the llm nor was the person I was responding to.
The pirating issue has nothing to do with the current lawsuit (the New York Times one mentioned in the article) nor did the government mention it in the current context.
That being said, I’m a pirate in my personal life, and I also think it’s kind of a necessary evil when it comes to building SOTA models. I wish we had a copy left solution to it, so you can use pirated data but need to open source it, so open source has a fighting chance and big AI can buy it if they want it. I’m okay with openAI and anthropic getting brought into court about it I guess, but the legislation ends up being market capture in their favor in the end.
I understand the issues though, very “rule for thee but not for me” currently.