FaceDeer

That's a work of fiction. You might as well suggest dropping lightsabres on the bunker.

Why is this any different?

The judgment in the article I linked goes into detail, but essentially you're asking for the law to let you control something that has never been yours to control before.

If an AI generates something that does indeed provably contain a sample of a piece of music in a song you recorded, then yes, that output may be something you can challenge as a copyright violation. But if the AI's output doesn't contain an identifiable sample, then no, it's not yours. That's how copyright works, it's about the actual tangible expression.

It's not about the analysis if copyrighted works, which is what AI training is doing. That's never been something that copyright holders have any say over.

Funny, for me it was quite heartening. If it had gone the other way it could have been disastrous for freedom of information and culture and learning in general. This decision prevents big publishers like Disney from claiming shares of the pie - their published works are free for anyone with access to them to train on, they don't need special permission or to pay special licensing fees.

There was actually just a big ruling on a case involving this, here's an article about it. In short: a judge granted summary judgment that establishes that training an AI does not require a license or any other permission from the copyright holder, that training an AI is not a copyright violation and they don't hold any rights over the resulting model.

I'm assuming this case is why we have this news about Anthropic scanning books coming out right now too.

So, people were angry at them for pirating books. Now we find they actually purchased books to scan, and people are angry about that too.

What material would that be? Corrosives have limits, they can't just keep dissolving stuff forever.

And what would "total failure" look like? It's a mountain, it's not going to just collapse into goo.

And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can't simply try again.

And no bomb is irresistible.

It made the ruling stronger, not weaker. The judge was accepting the most extreme claims that the Authors were making and still finding no copyright violation from training. Pushing back those claims won't help their case, it's already as strong as it's ever going to get.

As far as the judge was concerned, it didn't matter whether the AI did or did not "memorize" its training data. He said it didn't violate copyright either way.

I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw here. It previously had trouble generating full glasses of wine, they made some changes, now it can. As a result, AIs are capable of generating an image of a full wine glass.

This is just another goalpost that's been blown past, like the "AI will never be able to draw hands correctly" thing that was so popular back in the day. Now AIs are quite good at drawing hands, and so new "but they can't do X!" Standards have been invented. I see no fundamental reason why any of those standards won't ultimately be surpassed.

The judge writes that the Authors told him that LLMs memorized the content and could recite it. He then said "for purposes of argument I'll assume that's true," and even despite that he went ahead and ruled that LLM training does not violate copyright.

It was perhaps a bit daring of Anthropic not to contest what the Authors claimed in that case, but as it turns out the result is an even stronger ruling. The judge gave the Authors every benefit of the doubt and still found that they had no case when it came to training.

That's not what this ruling was about. That part is going to an actual trial.