[ckastner]

> So the illegality rests at the point of output and not at the point of input.

It's not as simple as that, as this settlement shows [1].

Also, generating output is what these models are primarily trained for.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y4jpg922qo

[kelnos]

Unfortunately a settlement doesn't really show you anything definitive about the legality or illegality of something.

It only shows you that the defendant thought it would be better for them to pay up rather than continue to be dragged through court, and that the plaintiff preferred some amount of certain money now over some other amount of uncertain money later, or never.

We cannot say with any amount of confidence how the court would have ruled on the legality, had things been allowed to play out without a settlement.

[threethirtytwo]

>Also, generating output is what these models are primarily trained for.

Yes but not generating illegal output. These models were trained with intent to generate legal output. The fact that it can generate illegal output is a side effect. That's my point.

If you use AI to generate illegal output, that act is illegal. If you use AI to generate legal output that act is not illegal. Thus the point of output is where the legal question lies. From inception up to training there is clear legal precedence for the existence of AI models.