[jsheard]

It's a one-way street with AI companies though, they are against IP protection for training data but support IP protection for the product of that training. Read the TOS/license of nearly any big model and it's clear the creator considers it and its output to be their IP and they will fight to restrict how you can use it for commercial purposes or training competing models, because those being a free-for-all would get in the way of their business model.

In practice it's less "abolishing intellectual property" and more "transmuting everyone else's IP into their own IP so they can be the ultimate IP landlords".

[jampekka]

Sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. Micr.. OpenAI can manage to brib.. convince a judge to make government to enforce this by force.

But how ML is at least currently developing, other megacorporations and universities are only a year or so behind OpenAI etc, and publishing their weights and models. Of course disregarding training set IP because otherwise keeping up would be impossible.

If the media and advertising megacorporations manage to get a ban on training on IP material, Micr.. OpenAI would be a huge benefactor, as they could afford some weird licensing deal on everybody's data and the actual open efforts would be extinguished.

Luckily US hegemony is fading and many other powers DGAF anymore what a US judge says. Or a WTO judge, because USA kind of destroyed WTO themselves already.

[__loam]

If they ban training on IP, it's not unlikely that GPT 4 would be subject to algorithmic disgorgement

[nortonsdad]

Unless the entity they're taking from can defend themselves in court. Just ask Copilot to generate an image in the style of AI hater Tim Burton and you'll get a ToS wrong-think violation. So really it is just for taking from small fries.