His point is equally valid.

but it’s irrelevant.

Can an artist be compelled to show the methods of their art? Is it as right to force an artist to give up methods if another artist thinks they are using AI to derive copyrighted work?

none of this is relevant in copyright law. the only thing that matters is who published it first and who is then using that copyrighted work for profit without first having gotten permission of the owner.

Haven’t we already seen that LLMs are really poor at evaluating whether or not something was created by an LLM?

also irrelevant

Wouldn’t making strong laws on such an already opaque and difficult-to-prove issue

laws are not written with the idea of whether on they’re hard or easy to prove as a consideration. also, your claims of such things being easy/hard to prove is a matter of opinion, and I don’t agree with you chain of deduction here. OpenAI admitted that Rowlong’s works (among many others) were used for training chatGPT.

be more of a burden on smaller artists vs. large studios with lawyers-in-tow.

also irrelevant, unless you’re arguing that, because it’s too difficult for small artists to defend their copyrighted work, they should just shut up and deal with it. currently, there is no legal precedent as to whether this is or is not copyright infringement, which is what a lawsuit like this is intended to set. For most, I would say, it Eem that it clearly is, for others, it’s not so clear.

I suppose you could say I’m making a good-faith assumption. It’s possible that he is.

my point is still valid.

that’s not exactly what’s in dispute— the prodcut that LLMs produce. That would probably be ruled as a derivative work under the DMCA’s “Fair Use” clause, and, therefore, public domain.

the issue at hand is that the company accessed the copyrighted material without paying for it and is now using that training to earn more money without fair compensation.

these language models or even proper AI can’t create original creative works the way a human can. The best it can do it create a pastiche or composition that simulates originality but is really just a jumble of recycled ideas that it’s been trained on. There’s a fair argument to be made that the owners of the copyrights of those pesos works are entitled to fair compensation, especially since AI is a tool used by a company to churn out profit off the work of others.

If you then use your brain to reproduce a product based on copyrighted work owned by Warner (without their permission) and try to sell it, then you could be in violation of the law.

the thing is: AI and your brain are very different things