Home Money ‘Neo-Nazi madness’: Meta’s top AI lawyer explains why he fired the company

‘Neo-Nazi madness’: Meta’s top AI lawyer explains why he fired the company

0 comments
'Neo-Nazi madness': Meta's top AI lawyer explains why he fired the company

The only exception to this is UMG against Anthropo case, because at least initially, older versions of Anthropic would generate song lyrics on output. That’s a problem. The current state of that case is that they have implemented safeguards to try to prevent that from happening, and the parties have sort of agreed that, pending resolution of the case, those safeguards are sufficient, so they are no longer seeking relief preliminary precautionary measure.

At the end of the day, the toughest question for AI companies is not Is it legal to participate in training? Is What do you do when your AI generates a result that is too similar to a particular job?

Do you expect most of these cases to go to trial or do you see settlements on the horizon?

It is very possible that there will be some agreements. Where I expect to see deals is with big players who have large amounts of content or content that is particularly valuable. The New York Times could reach a deal and a licensing deal, perhaps in which OpenAI pays money to use New York Times content.

There’s enough money at stake that we’ll probably get at least some rulings that set the parameters. The class action plaintiffs, I have a feeling, have stars in their eyes. There are many class action lawsuits, and I assume that defendants will resist them and hope to win through summary judgment. It is not obvious that they will go to trial. The Supreme Court in the Google vs. Oracle The case strongly pushed fair use law in the direction of being resolved by summary trial, not in front of a jury. I think the AI ​​companies will work hard to have those cases resolved by summary judgment.

Why would it be better for them to win with a summary trial than with a jury verdict?

It is faster and cheaper than going to court. And AI companies are worried that they won’t be seen as popular, that a lot of people will think: Oh, you made a copy of work that should be illegal. and not delve into the details of the fair use doctrine.

There have been many agreements between artificial intelligence companies and media, content providers and other rights holders. Most of the time, these deals seem to have more to do with search than fundamental models, or at least that’s how they’ve been described to me. In your opinion, is licensing content to be used in AI search engines, where answers are obtained through augmented generation retrieval or RAG, something legally required? Why do they do it this way?

If you are using augmented recall generation on specific, targeted content, then your fair use argument becomes more challenging. AI-generated search is much more likely to generate text taken directly from a particular source in the result, and is much less likely to be fair use. I mean, could be, but the risky area is that it is much more likely to compete with the source material. If instead of directing people to a New York Times story, I give them my AI message that uses RAG to take text directly from that New York Times story, that seems like a substitution that could hurt the New York Times. The legal risk is greater for the AI ​​company.

What do you want people to know about generative AI copyright fights that they may not already know or have been misinformed about?

What I hear most often that is technically wrong is the concept that these are just plagiarism machines. All they do is take my stuff and then reprocess it into text and responses. I hear a lot of artists say that, and I hear a lot of laymen say that, and it’s just not right from a technical standpoint. You can decide if generative AI is good or bad. You can decide if it is legal or illegal. But it really is something fundamentally new that we haven’t experienced before. Just because you need to train on a lot of content to understand how sentences work, how arguments work, and understand various facts about the world doesn’t mean it’s just about copying and pasting things or creating a collage. It’s really coming up with things that no one could expect or predict, and it’s giving us a lot of new content. I think that’s important and valuable.

You may also like