Post #2900980

@cwebber@social.coop I agree about the hazard. LLM outputs should be considered derivative of all their inputs unless established otherwise. LLMs manipulate expression, not ideas, and the propensity of verbatim reproduction (up to and including entire books) is evidence of that process. Note that the purpose of the "substantial similarity" test is as circumstantial evidence of process. I think the counterpoints are "mutually-assured destruction" and/or "yolo denial-of-service attack on copyright will win because power likes it". "AI" companies are still delaying cases from 2022 (like Doe v GitHub) because they want a jury who believes it is inevitable. Plaintiffs seek to win their cases, not to establish broad precedent. OpenAI has already lost (in German court) on copyright infringement of their outputs, arguing unsuccessfully that the infringement is the sole responsibility of their customers for prompting. The political reality of public sentiment is changing and collapse of the financial bubble will greatly alter the power held by "AI" companies. Meanwhile, I think the words of the DCO ought to mean something, even for those who are certain they are a smol bean. https://hachyderm.io/@jedbrown/114931171543347621 @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social