Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.
Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.
A better question is: Why not?
If Copyright doesn’t protect what goes in, why should it protect what comes out?
If I read a book - it is not punishable by anyone right now.
If I write that book down word for word, and put my name as the author - it’s illegal for and it should be for AI.
What is hard to understand here?
You would prefer that it’s either legal or do both, or illegal to do both?
deleted by creator
The part that you’re apparently having trouble understanding is that a language model is not a human mind and a human mind is not a language model.
Because sometimes it spits it out verbatim, and sometimes GPLed code gets spat out in the case of Copilot.
See: the time Copilot spat out the Quake inverse square root algorithm, comments and all.
Also, if it’s legal to disregard libre/open source licenses for this, then why isn’t it legal for me to look at leaked code, which I also do not have permission to use, and use the knowledge gained from that to write something else?
Which is exactly why the output of an AI trained on copyrighted inputs should not be copyrightable. It should not become the private property of whichever company owns the language model. That would be bad for a lot more reasons than the potential for laundering open source code.