Login
You're viewing the adforward.org public feed.
  • Paul Cantrellinthehands@hachyderm.io
    Oct 19, 2026, 4:30 AM

    RE: mastodon.social/@Zygos/1174618

    It strikes me that there’s a real Catch-22 here for AI vendors:

    They want to argue that training an LLM on other people’s copyrighted work without permission is OK because the LLM and its output are transformative use.

    But if it’s transformative, then the people doing the transforming must be responsible for this new, original work they created. No more “we’re just indexing other people’s sites!” If it’s misleading or defamatory, that’s their responsibility now.

    Can’t have it both ways.

    💬 1🔄 157⭐ 195

Replies

  • Paul Cantrellinthehands@hachyderm.io
    Oct 19, 2026, 2:56 PM

    To be clear, re several replies:

    (1) The post above is not about •my• opinion on the matter. It’s about which legal arguments make sense.

    (2) It’s possible for it to be both: it’s a coherent argument to say that some things an LLM does are in fact literal enough reproduction to be copyright violation •and• to say that humans are responsible for the tool. (That is in fact my own position.) The point of the previous post is that while saying “both!” is logically tenable, saying “neither!” is not.

    💬 0🔄 4⭐ 4
  • JWcph, Radicalized By Decencyjwcph@helvede.net
    Oct 19, 2026, 11:26 AM

    @inthehands They REALLY did not think this through. See also: Somebody using AI to reverse-engineer the Adobe package - the best case scenario for Adobe, who went all-in on AI, is that someone stole their product & gave it away & there's nothing they can do about it, because if they stop it for copyright violation, it undercuts the AI business & if they claim the copy is an inferior product, it also undercuts the AI business...

    💬 0🔄 2⭐ 0