Re: Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models

Hi,

On 4/28/25 19:03, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:

> Processing of experiences into expert opinion is IMHO not directly 
> comparable with compilation of source to a binary. Regardless if it's 
> done by a human or a software system.

LLMs do not build a knowledge representation that is separate from the 
natural language representation.

> The copyright law makes a 
> distinction here for humans.

The distinction is that the expert opinion is covered by patents, not 
copyright. We've fought for the non-patentability of algorithms, and I 
have very little objection to tools that can flawlessly reproduce an 
algorithm in any programming language. However, there is no need for 
such a tool, because software libraries already exist.

> And while no explicit legal precedent is 
> yet set for any kinds of AI (including LLMs), the very lack of massive 
> copyright violation lawsuits from very sue-happy corporations, like 
> Disney, is already a noteworthy precedent.

The LLM operators have gone to great lengths to avoid violating the 
copyrights of anyone with a massive legal department (try asking ChatGPT 
for pictures of Mickey Mouse). That they are choosing to ignore the 
copyrights of anyone without the resources to go after them legally is 
evidence of bad faith.

> One hand-wavy 
> legal loophole could be that the learning process splits the copyrighted 
> works into chunks small enough that none of those chunks would legally 
> retain the copyright protection anymore.

The chunks are small enough to make it difficult to bring a successful 
suit, which discourages smaller entities and individual copyright 
holders from asserting their rights.

    Simon