• Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    You are not gonna protect abstract ideas using copyright. Essentially, what he’s proposing implies turning this “TGPL” in some sort of viral NDA, which is a different category of contract.

    It’s harder to convince someone that a content-focused license like the GPLv3 protects also abstract ideas, than creating a new form of contract/license that is designed specifically to protect abstract ideas (not just the content itself) from being spread in ways you don’t want it to spread.

    • RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      LLMs don’t have anything to do with abstract ideas, they quite literally produce derivative content based on their training data & prompt.

      • Ferk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        LLMs abstract information collected from the content through an algorithm (what they store is the result of a series of tests/analysis, not the content itself, but a set of characteristics/ideas). If that’s derivative, then ALL abstract ideas are derivative. It’s not possible to make abstractions without collecting data derived from a source you are observing.

        If derivative abstractions were already something that copyright can protect then litigants wouldn’t have had to create patents, etc.