It's inevitable that this question ends up at the supreme court. And the sooner the better IMO. It's clearly fair use. Generative agents will be seen legally as no different than a human artist leveraging the summation of their influences to create a new work.
>It's inevitable that this question ends up at the supreme court. And the sooner the better IMO. It's clearly fair use. Generative agents will be seen legally as no different than a human artist leveraging the summation of their influences to create a new work.
Why do you think the architecture is important?
If I have a computer program and it outputs the an entire copyrighted poem then the answer to "is this copyright violation" SHOULD NOT depends on the architecture of the program.
It's not stored in ChatGPT actually, unlike Google's web search cache where it is stored verbatim, can be recalled perfectly, and is still fair use.
Fair use has nothing to do with reproducibility. LLMs are more clearly fair use than a search engine cache and those court cases are long settled. There's no world in which OpenAI doesn't win this entire thing.
