> Fewer people applying for patents, because the minute you apply for the patent, it's available to everybody, which means every model can train on it

We know LLM companies have, for lack of a better word, "sidestepped" the copyright on millions of works with their "transformative fair use" arguments. Are LLMs also a way to sidestep patents?

▲

pjc50 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

LLMs are accelerants. They enable people to do patent and copyright infringement at a much larger scale. As we know from previous examples, if you break the law enough as a company eventually they have to let you keep doing it.

	▲	newsy-combi 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not just as a company...

▲

dgellow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don’t see how? You can train on something pending patent, but what are the benefits? If it gets patented you open yourself to get sued, I don’t see how AI works around that, the idea itself is still patented? I think I’m missing something for the argument to make sense. Or is the idea that if too many people use your patented idea you won’t be able to enforce it? That sounds risky to me

▲

ozlikethewizard 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Because no AI company has been sued yet. Without more specific legislation there is no reason for AI trainers to not pilfer everything.

▲

JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Patents are public. Ingesting and innovating on them is the intended use. If you use an LLM to then make and market something that infringes on a patent, that isn’t the LLM doing any infringing, it’s you.

▲

stvltvs 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But are you even aware that you're infringing a patent? Is the LLM going to helpfully flag when it responds based on a patent?

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> are you even aware that you're infringing a patent? Plenty of folks first learn they’re infringing when they get a demand letter. Unless you ask it, I’m not sure it’s on the LLM to search for prior art and patent conflicts.

▲

6stringmerc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What a funny perspective - they didn’t side-step copyright, they blatantly infringed without financial consequence. The interesting “upside” is none of the generated works are protected by copyright. So it’s a bizarre conundrum which goes to show the complete disconnection between the concepts of the original intent - to protect authors and creators - with the warped capitalist mechanics of “rights holders” like Disney buying political influence for regulatory market capture.

Sugar coating the discussion is for children and dishonest ethical rationalization, in my view.