@cwebber it also drives me crazy how parochial my fellow Americans are. Even if they did decide, at the federal level, once and for all what the status is of output in the US, that's not applicable elsewhere. And we're in an international environment where trust between national leaders is low and some sort of treaty on this seems unlikely.
@thomasjwebb @cwebber the only thing the #USA is good in is flexing #Cyberfascism (#ITAR) and #EconomicWarfare (#sanctions) as in spiteful chokehold against other Nations and Individuals the Regime dislikes.
@thomasjwebb @cwebber yeah as a not-American, way too many conversations are centered on American law, like you're not allowed have an opinion if you haven't memorized the main legal system for tech companies.
Still less annoying than when all the national governments move at the speed of pitch to enforce perfectly enforceable laws against these companies.
@cwebber another thought I just had is what if someone runs their agent in yolo mode (don't ask permission before running whatever tools) and it ends up "going rogue" and verbatim copying code from a repo (or a local copy of a client's proprietary code)? Sometimes the commands it runs modify the code (such as search and replace stuff or scaffolds). I'm sure someone thought of this before, but I'm not even sure that training data being sufficiently atomized is enough to prevent liability.
I keep thinking it misguiding to say that training an LLM (or similar) on copyrighted work is a violation. It seems to me that the violation is in the *use* of the "model" to create infringing works. And the rulings' reasoning, that I've read, seems to be on the *use* being the justification for finding the violation.
Like, memorizing someone else's song is not a violation. Performing it for others, in a way that completes with the original, is the violation.
[I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. There are plenty of good reasons to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about.]