Incidentally, some AI chatbots do link to their sources. And it is a good idea to make that an explicit prompt if you're using one that doesn't. It's also worth prompting for how recent their information is.
I would partially agree with the guy, that yes, that was a social contract since 90's, but before the AI era. Back then this use case wasn't anticipated.
However even when something infringes copyright that doesn’t mean anything necessarily happens. Just look at YouTube’s early history or the mountains of fan fiction out there.
But something did happen. Viacom and others sued them, and then YouTube introduced their Content ID system so that they could pay copyright holders for content that others uploaded, as well as to take down videos belonging to copyright holders that did not agree to other people uploading their content.
That's for content that's reproduced in part or fully, but verbatim (like a song, movie clip, etc, where Content ID can apply).
But the parent's point is you can have trouble even for content where you "retell" something "in your own words".
> However even when something infringes copyright that doesn’t mean anything necessarily happens. Just look at YouTube’s early history or the mountains of fan fiction out there.
This part is talking about uploading a copy of something verbatim, the way I read it.
Yes, it took 2 years after creation and truly massive amounts of copyright infringement before the lawsuits by copyright owners showed up. OpenAI is getting sued, but don’t expect your requesting a website be rewritten to provoke anything unless you publish such rewritten posts at scale or something.
LLM's have no words of their own.
Imagine training a LLM vs a group of people from birth on wrong information. The LLM will unquestionably just repeat in "its own words" the wrong information, whereas the group of people will of course believe some of the wrong stuff, but they will also doubt a lot of it as well.
You could say that an LLM is just not good enough yet so the comparison isn't fair. In other words that people are just even more LLM'ing than the LLM, but there simply is no mechanism for an LLM to go from wrong information to right information.
People on the other hand will always doubt, hypothesize, and compare and contrast whatever information they have to at least attempt to form correct answers from correct information. This in a sense is because they actually have their own words.
There is, as of today, never been a smart or creative thing an LLM has ever said that doesn't literally come from other people's words. If LLM's are smart, it's because people are smart.
And there were of cause tons of SEO slop links among them.
Only if you have the same quality lawyers and financial backup to support them to get you off like MS has. Else what applies to MS doesn't apply to you :)