alt Hacker Newshe doesn't have solid points, he conflates fair use with free use (?), ignores thousands of years of attribution history, and equates normal human to human learning with corporate LLMs training on original content (without consent). Great presentation, like you said, to cover the logical defects.
Replies
sillysaurusx • yesterday at 9:51 PM
Fair use of training data hasn’t yet been settled in court. People here are treating it like it has been. But no amount of wishful thinking or moral arguments will change a verdict saying it’s fine for training data to be used as it has been.
Until that question is settled, it’s disingenuous to dismiss his points out of hand as conflating fair use or ignoring consent.
➕ show 2 replies
I did say "free use" instead of "fair use," yeah. That's my mistake, thank you for the correction. If I could edit my original comment, I would, mea culpa. Typos happen.