• Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I will admit this is not a simple case. That being said, if you’ve lived in the US (and are aware of local mores), but you’re not American. you will have a different perspective on the US judicial system.

    How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.

    Where did I say analyzing a text should be restricted?

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.

      I literally quoted a relevant part of the judge’s decision:

      But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such.

      • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        I am not a lawyer. I am talking about reality.

        What does an LLM application (or training processes associated with an LLM application) have to do with the concept of learning? Where is the learning happening? Who is doing the learning?

        Who is stopping the individuals at the LLM company from learning or analysing a given book?

        From my experience living in the US, this is pretty standard American-style corruption. Lots of pomp and bombast and roleplay of sorts, but the outcome is no different from any other country that is in deep need of judicial and anti-corruotion reform.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Well, I’m talking about the reality of the law. The judge equated training with learning and stated that there is nothing in copyright that can prohibit it. Go ahead and read the judge’s ruling, it’s on display at the article linked. His conclusions start on page 9.