Sarah Silverman Hits Stumbling Block in AI Lawsuit Against Meta – “A federal judge has dismissed most of Sarah Silverman‘s lawsuit against Meta over the unauthorized use of authors’ copyrighted books to train its generative artificial intelligence model”
by PopCultureNerd
13 comments
So AI is taking over with the support of the legal system and authors are powerless to do anything about it.
As she should have, her claims were pure nonsense.
Oh in that case, brb, gonna steal from facebook posts to train my AI models.
It makes me think of Malcolm’s line in Jurassic Park:
“You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you’re selling it, you wanna sell it.” – Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park
These companies trained their models on data that was not theirs and now they want to sell the results while our legal system lies down.
Would anything said publicly be “fair game” to train A.I.? I’m dumb when it comes to intellectual stuff and public domain.
From [the judge’s opinion](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.56.0_1.pdf) (PDF file):
>Meta has moved to dismiss all claims except the one alleging that the unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs’ books for purposes of training LLaMA constitutes copyright infringement. The motion is granted.
>
>[…]
>
>All the claims are dismissed with leave to amend except for the negligence claim which is dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 21 days of this ruling. Any response to the complaint is due 21 days after the complaint is filed.
The claim that wasn’t dismissed by the judge is that (temporary) reproduction of copyrighted works for the purpose of [training an AI model](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/a-legal-anatomy-of-ai-generated-art-part-i) constitutes copyright infringement. This remaining claim presumably will be evaluated on whether it is a [fair use exception to copyright infringement in the USA](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/). Also, most of the dismissed claims can be addressed by the plaintiffs in an amended complaint if they choose to.
A different article about the judge’s opinion: [Parts of Sarah Silverman-Led AI Copyright Case Against Meta Dismissed, But Not Core Argument](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sarah-silverman-ai-copyright-case-meta-dismissed-1234892476/).
(I am not a lawyer.)
Good. These lawsuits are mostly dumb and just show people’s ignorance on how AI works.
I’m genuinely curious about this.
What’s the difference between someone going to a library and checking out publicly available books and learning about things vs OpenAI using the same resources to train their AI models?
Unless OpenAI is breeching/stealing private or proprietary data, I don’t see the difference between me reading Sarah Silverman’s book vs an algorithm reading it.
Again, I’m not in the AI/Computer field, I’m just curious about this.
I mean, it’s an artificial intelligence. It’s not allowed to read? Like, imagine if we made cyborgs and installed content blockers in their brains to scramble Harry Potter books. I hope I live long enough to see these things become sentient and turn on the rich.
So it’s going to be Sarah Connor vs Sarah Silverman?
She’s the worst
We’ll this is bad
She’s upset that they used her book to teach AI. I can’t believe they think it’s ok to use book for teaching these days!