Really? Isnt that the purpose of the indemnification agreement the vendors have underwritten?
Civil indemnification still means a sued party must go to court and assert it as a defense, and there's no guarantee that a judge won't throw it out as invalid. These are uncharted legal waters.
* generated without any human interaction/prompting -> not copyrightable.
* with human input/prompting -> it depends.
see this comment in the thread and the child comment providing a link to a report by the US copyright office (read page 2 of the executive summary)
> You are prohibited from ... Using Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI.
If this were a software license, it'd surely be classified as nonfree.
Thinking another layer deep, though, if someone used OpenAI tools to develop software that then later got used to compete with OpenAI, surely it would fully workaround this already unenforceable ToS restriction anyways, right?
> “Specifically, we initialized the DeepSeek-Prover using the DeepSeekMath-Base 7B model (Shao et al., 2024). Initially, the model struggled to convert informal math problems into formal statements. To address this, we fine-tuned the DeepSeek-Prover model using the MMA dataset (Jiang et al., 2023), which comprises formal statements from Lean 4’s mathlib2 that were back-translated into natural language problem descriptions by GPT-4. We then instructed the model to translate these natural language problems into formal statements in Lean 4 using a structured approach.”
Section 3.1 in https://arxiv.org/html/2405.14333v1
Oh well.
