I wouldn't be surprised if the avenue of attack is that fair use laws are for humans, not robots, and if an AI has been trained on copyrighted data, that's not fair use.
Also, don't forget that in reality what's happened is that a bunch of copyrighted text is encoded in the LLM in a way a human can't understand, but that the LLM essentially CAN understand.
Still a copyright abolitionist though. Maybe now more people will join the fight?
The weights are not a reproduction of the content. They are capable of it but so is a photocopier a lot more and we didn’t ban those either despite them technically being a lot more useful for violation.
Nah, this is expansionist doctrine and agenda for copyright - these companies are trying to copyright style and locations in latent space now.
It would be different if I trained my own AI, for my personal use.
Again, LLMs don’t copy so it’s not a good metaphor.
You brought up photocopiers and you never said it wasn't a good metaphor so I don't know why you pre-pended "Again".
If it's not a good metaphor, that invalidates your point that:
"we didn’t ban [photocopiers] either despite them technically being a lot more useful for violation"
So now you're arguing against yourself.