[flir]

"I can use a lossy compression algorithm such that the original could never be recovered from the image I've produced, but that derived image would surely be under copyright."

I've tried my best to show where I think you're wrong. I think all that's left is arguing over the exact definitions of "recoverable" and "irretrievable". As I said, the courts will have to decide that.

[insanitybit]

I have no clue what you're talking about tbh. I can use a lossy compression algorithm that is definitionally holding less information than the original while still be subject to the copyright of the original. This is just obviously true, converting a PNG to a JPEG does not invalidate the copyright on the PNG. You can also produce an imagine using a lossy compression algorithm that is not subject to the copyright of the original, I haven't said that that's not true.

Regardless, the argument that LLM output is or is not subject to copyright based on information theory is entirely defeated by what I've said.

[flir]

> I have no clue what you're talking about tbh.

Point an LLM at the conversation and ask it to ELI5 the competing arguments.

[satvikpendem]

Indeed, not sure how this person above can't comprehend any competing arguments and seem to say they "don't understand" over and over again.

[insanitybit]

Why? I'm very obviously right. Entropy has nothing to do with copyright. Any LLM will answer the same.

[satvikpendem]

Read their example again if you have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing you said defeats the fact that LLMs do not do compression.

[insanitybit]

Nothing about entropy is related to copyright.