| If I put something up for anyone to read on the internet.
And someone reads it on the internet.
I can't really control that, right? Now, if someone makes an infringing use of the thing I put up on the internet.
Then I have some kind of recourse, at least through the courts, if I have a lot of money to pay lawyers. But if someone makes a fair use of the thing I put up on the internet, then I don't have any recourse, because that's the way the law works. As far as I understand it, using data as input data to a machine learning model that substantially transforms and does not duplicate the input data is currently believed to be fair use. So, the training use of freely available data seems pretty straightforward that authors can't control when they make it freely available. It seems like Facebook made use of data that wasn't freely available, though -- ebook rip library type stuff. That's the bit I think they could be in trouble for. But that's just a plain-old "Napster" style copyright question, as far as I understand it. The lawyer's argument that Llama "obliterates the market" for written works seems weak. I, and anyone I know, put down AI slop fiction before the first paragraph is done, because it's not the same thing as real fiction. |