[Jiejeing]

> But other than netting a hefty fee for the lawyers who bring the suit, what is the endgame, exactly?

Pay people whose works you want to extract value from, it is that easy… Unless the whole point of this "AI" bubble is to create monetary value for the companies and their shareholders without being held accountable. I do not mean that creating, configuring, tuning a model, or even compiling a massive dataset is not work, but it is the tiniest fraction of the work that went into whatever is present in the dataset.

> also, for software authors, prohibiting ML training would be antithetical to the Open Source Definition. So that probably won’t work.

A-ha, at one point I hope even AI zealots will be forced to acknowledge that the process is creating a derivative work and sure, train on my FOSS sources all you want, but the end result will need to abide by the licenses of all the sources browsed (have fun).

> As the tech industry celebrates the frothy emergence of machine learning in a time of economic doom and gloom, let’s hope this nascent field doesn’t sink because of the copyright iceberg looming ahead.

I am sorry to break this to the author, but not all fields and jobs need to exist. I have not seen much net positive from "AI" to society as a whole so far, with even less exciting things on the horizon.

[CuriouslyC]

Trying to legislate model training is impossible and stupid. At worst some copyright holders will sue a company because a model is biased and produces close-enough replicas of something under copyright. Model builders will respond by penalizing models that reproduce copyright images too closely, and better curating data sets to avoid bias, at which point the issue will be moot.

[Taywee]

I don't want anybody to feed any of my work into a model at all without following all the terms of the licenses of my work. If my work is used to generate, via a computer program, a derived output, then you need to follow my licenses.

People keep pretending that AI is the exact same thing as a human learning, but it's really a lot more like a fancy compiler with highly non-deterministic output. AI is not a human.

[scotty79]

Apparently AI already passes US medical exams. I guess it deserves to be beaten into the ground by estabilished copyright behemoths and lawyers.

[zone411]

No, not yet.

[a9h74j]

> Pay people whose works you want to extract value from

So, e.g., from Basic Attention Token (BAT) to Basic Authorship Token (also BAT)?