A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
until trump steps in and arrested the judges, and scraps the court ruling to protect his techbros..?
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 Duh
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 "which presages doom for all AI programs"
Well, NOT ones which are trained strictly on public domain data. For example, a stable diffusion algorithm can be trained strictly on pre-1930 public domain images. There's also a lot of more recent public domain data, such as NASA photos.
Ethical AI algorithms are possible, they just aren't the things AI corporations can vendor lock you into.
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 not really, the courts have been consistent thus far:
1) using copyrighted data to train LLMs for something unrelated is transformative and fair use (so the frontier labs are safe)
2) training AI on data to make a competitor is not
Presumably using a third-party LLM trained on data to build a competitor would still fall within 2), even if the LLM itself is 1). This has not been tested in court, however, and given the arbitrary and capricious nature of (English) Common Law, any decision could go either way. There is also a legal doctrine that facts cannot be copyrighted, the "sweat of the brow" collating them notwhitstanding.
This is why the NYT and publishers are banging on the legal theory that LLMs can be prompted to regurgitate the articles/books used in their training.
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 the headline and the actual ruling are completely different; as they note in the article: "The court found that Ross had effectively copy-pasted Thomson Reuters’ 'headnotes,' or brief editorial summaries of legal issues, verbatim for its legal search engine, a practice that isn’t difficult to separate from fair use."
-
I'm sure the Supreme Court will rule the other way.
They will receive a lot of politictical pressure and financial bribes to do so.
@simonzerafa @HollyCo26588808 Also, the president will argue that is is always fair use if he has determined that it is in the interest of national security.
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 "Presages doom." Hahaha. The Masters of the Universe will merely buy themselves some politicians to change the law.
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
I really hope so, but I'm not going to count my chickens yet.
"How influential the latest appeals court ruling will be is debatable. The court found that Ross had effectively copy-pasted Thomson Reuters’ “headnotes,” or brief editorial summaries of legal issues, verbatim for its legal search engine, a practice that isn’t difficult to separate from fair use."
-
A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI legal research company Ross Intelligence had broken copyright law by training its legal search engine on proprietary data harvested by their bots, a ruling which presages doom for all AI programs
@HollyCo26588808 If it presages doom it will only be doom for US and European models, not for Chinese models, whether they be open weights or not.
To celebrate this one needs to be absolutely sure that LLM will be of no use or relevant now and in the future. I’m not so sure anymore.
-
@HollyCo26588808 not really, the courts have been consistent thus far:
1) using copyrighted data to train LLMs for something unrelated is transformative and fair use (so the frontier labs are safe)
2) training AI on data to make a competitor is not
Presumably using a third-party LLM trained on data to build a competitor would still fall within 2), even if the LLM itself is 1). This has not been tested in court, however, and given the arbitrary and capricious nature of (English) Common Law, any decision could go either way. There is also a legal doctrine that facts cannot be copyrighted, the "sweat of the brow" collating them notwhitstanding.
This is why the NYT and publishers are banging on the legal theory that LLMs can be prompted to regurgitate the articles/books used in their training.
-
A anderslund@expressional.social shared this topic
