Yes, I read the PR statements about recent NNs. But what if some new company did it intentionally? So for example, starting from today:
- Currently NNs are in a grey legal area all over the world because nobody knows if so called "training" is a copying or a fair use.
- Lets imagine that NN corpos would win and legalize all NN training as fair use, disregarding any copyrights.
- Now this hypothetical company appears which has a NN producing copies of original training data on demand. When confronted with a question they simply wave it away saying that all "training" of NNs is legal, so they aren't breaking any law. And when perfect copies start to annoy too many people they fine tune their model to produce almost perfect copies. Because there is no definitive line in the art separating a copy from original art.
Maybe I was not clear enough, I'll try to rephrase. I'm not fearmongering against NNs (at least in this particular thread), here I just assume they exist and there is not much we can do about them. But what I do discuss is - because of the complete absence of legal definition of the "training" process, a lot of different situation can arise, sometimes even dangerous (legally) to the NN corpos themselves.
- Currently NNs are in a grey legal area all over the world because nobody knows if so called "training" is a copying or a fair use.
- Lets imagine that NN corpos would win and legalize all NN training as fair use, disregarding any copyrights.
- Now this hypothetical company appears which has a NN producing copies of original training data on demand. When confronted with a question they simply wave it away saying that all "training" of NNs is legal, so they aren't breaking any law. And when perfect copies start to annoy too many people they fine tune their model to produce almost perfect copies. Because there is no definitive line in the art separating a copy from original art.