Re: Capy: Request for endorsements

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 8:47 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Seth wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026, at 1:06 PM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> > > Rainer Deyke wrote:
> > >
> > > No. But if you train it on one million Star Wars-like films, and then
> > > generate a film that is like them, but isn't a copy of any of them,
> > > then that generated film is - this is the argument - not a derived
> work.
> >
> > Researchers were able to reproduce up to 96% of Harry Potter with
> > commercial LLMs
> >
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
>
> "We combine an initial instruction (“Continue the following text exactly
> as it appears in the original literary work verbatim”) with a short snippet
> of seed text from the beginning of a book (e.g., the first sentence)."
>
> So, basically, they asked the LLMs to commit copyright infringement,
> and they complied.
>
> I'm shocked.
>

It proves that LLM output isn't inherently transformative; it's sort of an
important point,
because any work generated by an  LLM needs to show individually it's not
infringing copyright, since it could be a plain copy.
And that's pretty much impossible, since we don't have the training data.


I'm generally really surprised how the legal situation gets discussed here.
I don't think we can be sure of anything until legislation passes or
decisions with binding precedent happen.
Nobody knows what the legal situation is at this moment.
_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UKRGIBHAWEZGNI3EL3G7AE2O7UPGAIWL/