|
|
|
|
|
|
by jaspax
1261 days ago
|
|
|
What GP means is that ChatGPT output is generally not similar enough to any _particular_ source document to establish the fact that it's derivative. Instead, it resembles what you'd get if you asked a (credulous and slightly dumb) human to read a selection of documents and then summarize them. These kinds of summaries are absolutely not copyright violations, even if the source document can actually be identified. |
|
|
Isn't this exactly what a court case would be trying to clarify? If so wouldn't assuming this be begging the question?