[fatfingerd]

The 2 claims I heard from Sarah Silverman are that a specific AI was documented to be trained from a specific library of pirated content and that it gave verbatim or near verbatim output from her book. Piracy and plagiarism for non corporate humans.

[xodjmk]

If this is true, that does not sound like a successful implementation of an 'AI'. What would be the point of just parroting some existing content? There is not even an economic reason to doing this. The point is to train a model, some sort of neural net or similar structure, that does not store specific information, but can synthesize new unique content according to some prompt. If some crackhead or group of crackheads is trying to profit by creating an algorithm that regurgitates Sarah Silverman content, then yes, hire a bunch of lawyers and sue them. That sounds like a very stupid game. No legit engineer is actually trying to do that. I'm not cheerleading for some big corporate tech company. I am 100% in favor of open source, run my own little Linux+GPU cloudless experiments. I see the problem as reversed. It's corporations, copyright lawyers and other interests trying to gatekeep data and control who has access to what. I don't think it's healthy to have hyper vigilant copyright laws blocking access to data, so in the end, only huge corporations will be able to pay all the fees to make progress with A.I.