While this may be true, the reverse is also true, and even if it’s legal, there are other ways to frame this that are worth considering, e.g. It could technically be legal, but not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Updates to laws are required. The fact that the model is legal is an additional problem on top of the gap in the law.

I think my main point here is that “legal” does not imply moral or acceptable to society, and our understanding of the technical legal status is not a prerequisite for exploring those factors, which may be the thing that changes the legal status in response to the major shift in landscape.

I think it’s a mistake/fallacy to equate the human acquisition of knowledge and resulting synthesis of value with that of large-scale computers ingesting the sum total of written human knowledge and the outcomes that enables.

They are not similar, and I suspect that if they were (i.e. humans could absorb that much information), the information landscape and the market models for exchanging value would look nothing like they do today, and AI wouldn’t be rocking the boat, it’d just be another adherent to the resulting laws.

I think the difference is you presumably obtained that book legally before writing the review. In this case the book was pirated (the definitely illegal part), and then used for training (the possibly illegal part, but I suspect this would be deemed fair use).

IMO google and their massive google books DB would have a better leg to stand on here if they trained on that dataset as they owned physical copies of all the books.

>Copyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review.

The problem with current AI is that they memorize stuff, there is the case with the AI memorizing an algorithm perfectly, or reciting quotes from Dune and then getting censored.

Now you as a paying user of this AI tools are not making reviews but probably using them for commercial purposes and it would not be fiar if your proprietary code would use code copy pasted from GPL code.

If this AI would be so clever then IMO you could have them laarn say Python exactly like a human, a few books and some exercises on python, some books on algorithms, some books on html or whatever tech. But today they train with the full github and you get a mix of stuff. My suggestion would also improve the sorry state of JS in ChatGPT where it uses super old syntax and still uses outdated pattern like it is coding for IE6. My guess this is because it is train with old or bad code and this mean a=most of the code from now one will be old syntax and bad

“Rich authors”.

Citation needed.

Couldn’t they just buy the ebook and call it a day? The rich people are the people training LLMs not the authors lol

It certainly worked for their founders.