Raw LLM Responses

Once again, training AI on public data, even copyrighted works, is not inherently against the law. It's not like this guy was the only person claiming OpenAI and other companies have trained on copyrighted data. The only reason he's being called "a whistleblower" is because he worked at OpenAI and said training data included copyrighted data. OpenAI has said "yes, we trained on it and it's fair use." Balaji wasn't suing OpenAI, scheduled to testify before congress, or anything else that would make him a target for assassination. He's also an engineer and not a lawyer. > “The outputs aren’t exact copies of the inputs, but they are also not fundamentally novel,” he said. This week, he posted an essay on his personal website that included what he describes as a mathematical analysis that aims to show that this claim is true. > > Mark Lemley, a Stanford University law professor, argued the opposite. Most of what chatbots put out, he said, is sufficiently different from its training data. > > “There are occasionally circumstances where an output looks like an input,” he said. “A vast majority of things generated by a ChatGPT or an image generation system do not draw heavily from a particular piece of content.” Edit: I should add the quote is from October. Not more recent.