[rvz]

See. The fair-use excuses that the AI proponents here were trying to hang on to for dear life have fallen flat on this ruling.

This is going to be one of many cases in which there will be licensing deals being made out of this to stop AI grifters claiming 'fair use' to try to side-step copyright laws because they are using a gen AI system.

OpenAI ended up paying up for the data with Shutterstock and other news sources. This will be no different.

[Salgat]

My biggest concern is, what happens when countries like China, who aren't restricted by this, far outpace western countries in this technology? Do we just shrug and accept our far inferior models? LLMs are a productivity multiplier (similar to a search engine), so it'll have a large impact on the economy if licensing costs prohibit large scale training.

[esafak]

"Our" models are not inferior. There is plenty of data, and the next frontier is prediction-time compute and data synthesis. Shouldn't the Chinese worry that they are depressing the publication of commercial IP?

[Salgat]

Our models are not inferior because we're not constrained by copyrights, which is the entire concern we're discussing.

[blibble]

once the case law is set, I look forward to suing everyone that's ever trained a model for $300,000 PER WORK each time they ingested my code from GitHub

whoever wrote those indemnity policies is going to regret it

[anticensor]

> once the case law is set, I look forward to suing everyone that's ever trained a model for $300,000 PER WORK each time they ingested my code from GitHub

Didn't you already share it on GitHub royalty-free?

[blibble]

no, it was under a very specific license that required attribution

and other than that, All Rights Reserved