Poll of the Day > Sarah Sliverman and Others Sue A.I. Makers...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66164228

Do you think she has a case? (Poll Question)

As the article says, it's going to come entirely down to whether or not LLM's are considered fair use. I'm inclined to say they shouldn't be, given that the concept of fair use hinges on creating something new and LLM's just rearrange whatever they've collected instead of actually creating anything, but it's largely unprecedented legal territory and it's likely going to come down to whose lawyer can be the most convincing.

Automation took everyone elses'' jobs, but now that it affect the boug they care now?

Ironically, the AI probably makes better jokes on its worst days than Silverman. I mean what?

Unless they end up literally copying someones work, which seems unlikely but possible? I can understand why someone would want to do this, I just don't know where this is going to fall.

It's not like AI art where there are numerous examples where it's effectively just slightly altered traced artwork.

I feel like they want to establish case law with their case. But I doubt they'll actually take it the way to trial. A lot of people posture a moral point and then cave at $750 million. So we'll see what happens.

I don't know enough about any type of law that this involves but I think their allegations deserve merit to be reviewed by a judge if they actually do take it that far.

Yes. Whether you like their material or not, these people deserve to make a living and shouldn't be paid less while their executives make massive profits.

adjl posted...

I'm inclined to say they shouldn't be, given that the concept of fair use hinges on creating something new and LLM's just rearrange whatever they've collected instead of actually creating anything, but it's largely unprecedented legal territory and it's likely going to come down to whose lawyer can be the most convincing.

I mean, "just rearranging whatever they've collected" is basically language in a nutshell. How do you separate "creation" from what LLMs are doing?

The idea that LLMs - most AIs, honestly - are taking bits and pieces of things used to seed the model is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works. When an AI bot like ChatGPT is fed a bunch of text, it's not going to clip a sentence from work X and staple it to another sentence from work Y; it's going to break down all that text to try and understand how language works, largely by guessing which words go together in sequence to result in a specific meaning.

I honestly don't think that this case will go anywhere. Right out the gate, there's the question of standing. In order for someone to sue for damages, they have to prove that they've suffered actual harm. Saying, "This technology might threaten my livelihood in the future!" isn't actual harm. The angle they appear to be going for is claiming copyright infringement based on the usage of their writing, but that seems like a pretty weak claim, at least against these particular defendants, especially as the copyrighted work isn't being reproduced in their products.