There is no valid legal definition, because even general AI (i.e. humans) can memorize copyrighted content and spit it out no problem. I can type out lyrics to some of my favorite songs by heart, and they're still copyrighted.
this is an interesting take! it seems to me that if this is actually true, we will need a legal definition of "AI" (or, rather, machine learning), because presumably selecting snippets of prose with dice is _not_ fair use?https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1412785073171034113 …
-
-
-
So what GitHub needs is a general AI that is literally smart enough to understand what is infringement and what isn't, and that *their lawyers* trust not to screw up, out of judgement, not impossibility. Don't have that yet? Too bad :)
Ende der Unterhaltung
Neue Unterhaltung -
-
-
It's smart of them to do the first big public copyright-in-ML abuse as a thing where the victims are mostly individuals or very small organisations. They're more likely to get a favorable precedent than they would if they did this to a business of comparable size.
-
Yeah, you're right. I'm sure they've planned this out well.
- Antworten anzeigen
Neue Unterhaltung -
Das Laden scheint etwas zu dauern.
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.