Microsoft: Copyright law “no more an obstacle to the LLM than it was to the VCR.”

  • omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    So the real debate is whether training a model counts as copyright infringement. Training an LLM provides it with the means to create similar content. Does a prospective author reading around his topic of interest not do the same? The only real difference is the speed at which derived works can be created

    • lemmyng@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      An author taking someone else’s work, changing parts of it, and then selling it as new is plagiarism. The only difference is the speed at which the LLM can plagiarize its sources.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Generating new content influenced by someone else is not plagiarism

        • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          But didn’t you know that if I write in iambic pentameter and make up some flowery words to describe things that don’t already have a definition, I am literally Shakespeare?

        • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It depends on the level of influence in the new content. There were a number of articles that clearly showed derivative (even stolen) work by using innocuous phrases. For instance, any prompt with “video game” and “plumber” will create an unmistakable clone of Mario.

          I suspect the question will be whether these models could produce similar content without using the original content.