Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the main arguments are:

1. Training an LLM is akin to human learning. It is legal to read a textbook about music to learn music, and later to write a book about music which likely includes some of the concepts you earlier learned.

2. Neither the LLM nor the output text contain sufficient elements of the copyrighted work to qualify for copyright protection. Just like if you turned old library books into compost and sold the compost, you wouldn't expect to pay authors of those books a royalty for the compost sales.



> Training an LLM is akin to human learning. It is legal to read a textbook about music to learn music

If you learn a little too hard though, and reproduce the original textbook in it's entirety, you'll get in trouble.

My guess is that courts will determine that the training itself will not be found illegal, but either the AI companies, or the users, will be found liable for reproducing copywrighted work in output, and no one will want to hold liability for that.


I feel like there’s no way 1 will fly. Very soon ai and humans will explicitly have to follow different laws because they operate very differently.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: