[moscoe]

The idea that you can’t train on copyrighted materials is ludicrous, imho. So apparently you don’t want humanity and the future of intelligence to benefit from your work? You just want it to keep it locked up in some archive that virtually no one ever reads?

Might as well say the people who read your books aren’t allowed to teach the concepts or theories. Completely asinine argument. If you don’t want the knowledge to proliferate, then don’t publish. They’re not copying and redistributing.

Meanwhile, jurisdictions outside of us copyright protection will leapfrog us because we can’t get out of our own way.

[sepositus]

I’m not sure that’s the whole picture. Followed to the logical conclusion, everyone should have the right to pirate whatever books they want and then feed them into a local LLM. Which leads to less kickback to the author, which means they can’t sustainably write, and we end up in a worse off situation.

[throwaway150]

> The idea that you can’t train on copyrighted materials is ludicrous, imho.

Let us for a minute accept that it is ok to train on copyrighted materials. I don't believe that but I'll humor you. So let's accept it.

To train on copyrighted materials, they need to purchase the copyrighted materials, correct? If you wanted to train a model on all O'reilly books, you'd purchase the O'reilly books first, wouldn't you?

Do you think it is ok to make illegal pirated copies of the book to do your training?

[philistine]

People on this board have mischaracterized this case so much it looks like Facebook employees trying to astroturf.

[entangledqubit]

Meta's more open models aside, are the other copyright abusers giving out their model for free?