5 ms·
I don’t get that, the use of these books was instrumental and necessary for the success of the training run. The expected value of these training runs is high a
by orbifold 6mo ago
I don’t get that, the use of these books was instrumental and necessary for the success of the training run. The expected value of these training runs is high as the build out of 100 billion+ infrastructure demonstrates, so the book publishers should at a minimum be paid a licensing fee, a small fraction of every inference run revenue or whatever they decide. The fact that authors and publishers didn’t get any say under what conditions their intellectual property can be used is pretty outrageous.
- satvikpendem 6mo agoThe conclusion was they suffered no legal harm, in that their interests such as their continued publishing of books was not affected by LLMs; no one is using AI to compete with publishers, if anything "authors" might very well use those same publishers to get their generated books on shelves. If it's fair use, no licensing fee is needed.
- smegger001 6mo agoSo pretty much the same as the Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case ruling it as fair use as a transformative work. I mean if indexing the worlds books is transformative then a neural net run on them certainly is a transformative work and fair use.
- satvikpendem 6mo agoYes, that's how the argument is going for these lawsuits so far.