> how can you argue about about IP and copyright if the breakthrough of LLMs is potentially based on circumventing or breaking IP and copyright in the first place?

Easy answer: it’s not. Learning isn’t copyright infringement. Never has been and hopefully never will be.

▲

dimbletimbers an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This is another case of anthropomorphic language for AI failing us. Who could be opposed to “learning?”

If I learn from a textbook I stole, some people maybe be thrilled I learned something, but stealing is still a crime and hopefully always will be.

▲

prathje an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, of course learning isn't the problem and shouldn't be. But what about reselling/commercialising that knowledge? That is the big (commercial) opportunity. But if AI models learn by fitting their parameters to the given data, then overfitting on said data could result in the IP or copyrighted being "slopped" out verbatim?

	▲	semiquaver 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The knowledge isn’t copyrighted and, thank god, cannot be. I thought we were supposed to be hackers. Information wants to be free and all that. What a bunch of hypocrites, willing to betray their ideals as soon as it’s convenient.

▲

LunaSea an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Learning isn't but using that knowledge is.

▲

bluefirebrand an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Learning isn’t copyright infringement. Never has been and hopefully never will be.

For humans.

Why should computer systems owned by corporations have anything remotely similar to the same freedoms as humans?