Hacker News Reader

I think the conclusion is slightly wrong: they're not trying to hide the training process. They'll probably wind up vigorously defending that in court however they can, they're in big trouble if they can't train like that.

They're trying to avoid reproducing copyrighted text, which is a totally separate (and arguably more clear-cut) legal question. Input vs output.

View on HN

> Input vs output.

This is what I've been wondering. Does Fair Use apply here at all? Sure, the models were trained on copyrighted material. But wouldn't the generative part of the AI count as transformative?

I was trained on copyrighted books. I only get in trouble when I spout out paragraphs from them from memory and pass them off as my own.

I know not to do that, though.

Seems only fair that the same should apply to GPT.

Agreed.

Honestly, this is starting to feel like copyright holders using the Big, New, Scary AI as a strawman to attack Fair Use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com