Hacker News Reader

I don't understand your point because humans generate novel output AND memorise and regurgitate source material.

I believe human artists consciously adjust their output to avoid copying previous artists too closely. And sometimes they choose to copy very closely or exactly.

Obviously the same feature can be implemented as an option on generative AI systems.

View on HN

My point is that Japan can claim whatever they want about copyright not applying to LLM inputs (training data), but it makes no difference. Copyright infringement will be judged on what they output. Of course, many outputs will be novel enough to avoid copyright claims, but not all, same as the output of a human.

No doubt generative AI systems could be built to self-police and not emit any tentative outputs that are too close to training samples, but that's certainly not the way they are today, and it's not clear from the article that started this topic that this issue is addressed in any way by the Japanese law, which is just about training data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com