That’s not at all what this ruling says, or what LLMs do.
Copyright covers a specific concrete expression. It doesn’t cover the information that the expression conveys. So if I paint a portrait of myself, that portrait is covered by copyright. If someone looks at the portrait and says “this is a portrait of a tall, dark, handsome deer-creature of some sort with awesome antlers” they haven’t violated that copyright even if they’re accurately conveying the same information that the portrait is conveying.
The ruling does cover the assumption that the LLM “contains” the training text, which was asserted by the Authors and was not contested by Anthropic. The judge ruled that even if this assertion is true it doesn’t matter. The LLM is sufficiently transformative to count as a new work.
If you have an LLM reproduce a copyrighted text, the text is still copyrighted. That doesn’t change. Just like if a human re-wrote it word-for-word from memory.
That’s not at all what this ruling says, or what LLMs do.
Copyright covers a specific concrete expression. It doesn’t cover the information that the expression conveys. So if I paint a portrait of myself, that portrait is covered by copyright. If someone looks at the portrait and says “this is a portrait of a tall, dark, handsome deer-creature of some sort with awesome antlers” they haven’t violated that copyright even if they’re accurately conveying the same information that the portrait is conveying.
The ruling does cover the assumption that the LLM “contains” the training text, which was asserted by the Authors and was not contested by Anthropic. The judge ruled that even if this assertion is true it doesn’t matter. The LLM is sufficiently transformative to count as a new work.
If you have an LLM reproduce a copyrighted text, the text is still copyrighted. That doesn’t change. Just like if a human re-wrote it word-for-word from memory.
It’s a horrible ruling. If you want to see why I say so I put some of the reasonung in the other comment who responded to that.
https://lemmy.world/comment/17884664