Except LLMs are in no way violating copyright in the true sense of the word. They aren’t spitting out a copy of what they ingested.

▲

JoshTriplett a year ago | parent [-]

Go make a movie using the same plot as a Disney movie, that doesn't copy any of the text or images of the original, and see how far "not spitting out a copy" gets you in court.

AI's approach to copyright is very much "rules for thee but not for me".

▲

rcxdude a year ago | parent | next [-]

That might get you pretty far in court, actually. You'd have to be pretty close in terms of the sequence of events, character names, etc. Especially considering how many Disney movies are based on pre-existing stories, if you were, to, say, make a movie featuring talking animals that more or less followed the plot of Hamlet, you would have a decent chance of prevailing in court, given the resources to fight their army of lawyers.

▲

bdangubic a year ago | parent | prev [-]

100% agree. but now a million$ question - how would you deal with AI when it comes to copyright? what rules could we possibly put in place?

▲

JoshTriplett a year ago | parent [-]

The same rules we already have: follow the license of whatever you use. If something doesn't have a license, don't use it. And if someone says "but we can't build AI that way!", too bad, go fix it for everyone first.

▲

slyall a year ago | parent [-]

You have a lot of opinions on AI for somebody who has only read stuff in the public domain

▲

noitpmeder a year ago | parent [-]

Most Information about AI is in the public domain....?

	▲	slyall a year ago \| parent [-]
		I mean "public domain" in the copyright context, not the "trade secret" context.