[StopHammoTime]

I'm unsure what you're getting at, but when people sing copyright songs or act copyright plays that do, in fact, get a license. So yes, if you train a human on someone's copyright content I do expect you to have a license to it.

I'm sure you've heard of covers? Well every cover that is published affords a royalty to (at least) the original authors of both the lyrics and composition. The artist may get some money, depending on how the work was licensed.

[marshray]

Read what you just wrote again.

Do you see a difference between training and reproduction?

[StopHammoTime]

Yes, someone still needed to be trained on the original copyright sheet music before they could train someone else. Ultimately the source of that knowledge was a copyright piece of material that was licensed appropriately.

Yes someone may teach another person based on their memory, but even if that person still performs that work they still are legally required to license the work.

Yes, if the only thing they were doing was training, sure. But it’s not. They’re training and then presenting the data and given the way LLMs are trained, there is no guarantee a transformation even takes place.

At the end of the day LLMs should be licensed under the current copyright system. Maybe OpenAI need to donate some money to a few politicians for that to change.