[bumby]

I think the counter argument is that it works provide a pathway for “ordinary” people to monetize IP. Copyrights exist as soon as a creative work is made, it’s an entirely different IP tool than, say, a patent that has a more arduous process.

[visarga]

Yes but most LLM usage is for a single reader - the user who prompted the model. The output is rarely published. Maybe there should be a different rule for using LLM text to author public books and articles.

[bumby]

AFAIK copyright laws do not make such a distinction. The most common exemption is fair use, but it requires the addition of some new creative aspect. Whether or not LLMs are creative or derivative may be an area that the courts are forced to define. Given the recent rulings that put this determination squarely on the court, I’m not sure the courts have the expertise to do so.

[visarga]

> but it requires the addition of some new creative aspect

That is one thing I can't get. Why is everyone not seeing the elephant in the room? The user and the user prompt - they add new intention and purpose to the material being referenced. Not only that, but a LLM response is usually shorter than a full length article or book. On top of that, LLMs retrieve from multiple sources when they use search, and respond from even more sources when they generate answers in closed-book mode. They are clearly doing synthesis.

LLMs are not even good tools for infringement. You have to work really hard to put the LLM into an infringing mood, and it requires snippets from the target content, and only works like 1% of the time. If you have snippets, you probably have the whole thing already. Copying is so much easier and faster. LLMs would just reproduce approximatively a desired content. What a LLM gets from a source text in closed-book mode is on the same level with a image thumbnail from a full resolution image.

What LLMs do well is to recombine ideas in new ways, as demanded by the prompt. Should that be infringing? If the answer is yes, then humans should also be barred from recombining ideas. After all, any human could secretly be using LLMs. But that would just tank creativity for fear of litigation. Isn't it strange how copyright promotes creativity by restricting it?

Even the name "copyright" refers to copying, as it was initially envisioned. Now authors want to expand it to idea ownership. I think it's a power grab.

[bumby]

>Should that be infringing?

That’s the big question I was alluding to. Does the prompt provide sufficient novelty to avoid claims of copyright? Or is it too derivative? I don’t have a strong opinion but can see both sides and suspect eventually it will be decided by the courts.

The distinction you may be missing is that copyright refers to licensed reproduction. IP is, after all, about property/ownership rights.

[Kim_Bruning]

Not everyone agrees with that view, of course.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

[bumby]

Of course. IP is a shorthand for these types of forums/discussion, although it is also used in court.