> If I go to a bookshop, take a book off the shelf and start reading it, I am not infringing any copyright.
I'm not sure this is applicable to licensed programs because a book is sold, not licensed.
> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain.
As far as I know, the output of a compiler that builds executables from copyrighted source code is still subject to copyright protection. Is software like an LLM fundamentally different from a compiler in this regard?
In my opinion, the author's argument has several flaws, but perhaps a more important question is whether society would benefit from making an exception for LLM technologies.
I think it depends on how this technology will be used. If it is intended for purely educational purposes and is free of charge for end users, maybe it's not that bad. After all, we have Wikipedia.
However, if the technology is intended for commercial use, it might be reasonable to establish common rules for paying royalties to the original authors of the training data whenever authorship can be clearly determined. From this perspective, it could further benefit authors of open-source and possibly free software too.
I'm not sure this is applicable to licensed programs because a book is sold, not licensed.
> The output of a machine simply does not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain.
As far as I know, the output of a compiler that builds executables from copyrighted source code is still subject to copyright protection. Is software like an LLM fundamentally different from a compiler in this regard?
In my opinion, the author's argument has several flaws, but perhaps a more important question is whether society would benefit from making an exception for LLM technologies.
I think it depends on how this technology will be used. If it is intended for purely educational purposes and is free of charge for end users, maybe it's not that bad. After all, we have Wikipedia.
However, if the technology is intended for commercial use, it might be reasonable to establish common rules for paying royalties to the original authors of the training data whenever authorship can be clearly determined. From this perspective, it could further benefit authors of open-source and possibly free software too.