[Mechanical9]

People get way too hung up on what current copyright law is and whether it supports or condemns LLMs trained on copyrighted material. IMO, who cares what the current law is? Existing laws were made for past technologies and for the current limitations of humans. It's nonsense to apply the same rules to new devices that don't have the same limitations.

I can pay to read all of the GoT books and then tell anyone who asks who kills Dumbledore or whatever. That's information you would have to pay the author for, but anyone can get it for free from me because I already read the book. This is acceptable because we assume that #1 I paid to read the books (or my library paid to acquire a copy) and #2 I won't be able to literally regurgitate the entirety of the books to every person in the world simultaneously. For everyone in the world to get that 2nd-hand enjoyment, enough people would have to pay to read the books that the author would make enough money to be happy.

The situation with LLMs is clearly different. The ratio between the amount an LLM compensates an author vs. how much many people it can share derived content with is off the charts compared to the same for a person.

IMO, there's no need to argue whether LLMs are being treated differently from humans w.r.t. copyright. LLMs have different capabilities than humans. Copyright at present is optimized for humans, and should be updated to address the implications of LLMs' capabilities.

[bryanlyon]

"Cliff Note" style content sometimes outsells the content they're summarizing. LLMs aren't a new problem, the internet did that already. In fact, they're really LESS likely to provide a large amount of the original content.

I do agree on the fact that the current laws aren't going to work for this context, especially bad is trying to fit the new challenges to copyright laws.

[CaptainFever]

One can look at TDM exceptions or AI regulatory frameworks in EU and APAC regions for examples on how this is currently progressing. In summary, cautiously pro-AI in most places, since no country really wants to be left behind.

Personally, I think copyright is a red herring. This is really about automation. If AI was trained using public domain works, would people put out of jobs still complain? Of course they would. The solution is what we've always done for automation: social safety nets and reskilling.

[mistrial9]

matching color jumpsuits by rank, too ?

[jowea]

Are you that confident that the political process will create new law on the issue? Maybe the EU and some countries but I have a feeling the US Congress will leave it to the courts to interpret existing law and apply it.

[appplication]

The US courts will unironically scour the constitution for any prescient wisdom the founding fathers may have hidden between the lines for how we should handle LLMs.

The US legal system is completely incapable of handling this without parental supervision.