| ▲ | onion2k 7 hours ago | |||||||
For this to stand up in court you'd need to show that an LLM is distributing "a modified version of the document". If I took a book and cut it up into individual words (or partial words even), and then used some of the words with words from every other book to write a new book, it'd be hard to argue that I'm really "distributing the first book", even if the subject of my book is the same as the first one. This really just highlights how the law is a long way behind what's achievable with modern computing power. | ||||||||
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Presumably, a suitable prompt could get the LLM to produce whole sections of the book which would demonstrate that the LLM contains a modified version. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | rcdwealth 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
[dead] | ||||||||