Re: Capy: Request for endorsements

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 9:18 PM Peter Dimov via Boost <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Klemens Morgenstern wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 8:47 PM Peter Dimov via Boost
> > <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 doesn't need to be "inherently transformative". Wanting it to be
> "inherently transformative" is again asking for "legal protection" and
> this simply doesn't exist. It doesn't exist for people, it doesn't exist
> for LLMs.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's not how it works. If that was how it worked, _you_ would also
> have needed to show, for every line of code you wrote, that it's not
> infringing copyright.
>

I think my language wasn't clear - I didn't mean before in a court.

If I write a piece of code, I usually have a good sense of what it's based
on so I can slap a license on it.
You just have no idea with LLMs, because you cannot trace output back to
the input. And there's always input,
since LLMs have no thoughts or ideas.

So we know it's derived from something, i.e. it's never original, but we
don't know how transformative it is,
and we don't have a person to ask.


>
> Your output isn't "inherently transformative" either.
>

Correct, I could be infringing copyright by reproducing a copyrighted work
from memory.
_______________________________________________
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/OWDUROXU5ZQACGCEKQAX74HPRUR2ZN4R/