Meta's training of its large language models (LLMs) with copyrighted texts sparked a legal debate regarding fair use. The judge underscored the lack of evidence for market dilution, which favored Meta's defense. Although LLMs can perform various tasks, the economic implications of potentially harming the original market of the copyrighted works raise questions about the validity of fair use in such scenarios. The outcome indicates challenges for plaintiffs to establish their cases in similar contexts while questioning the transformative nature of LLM training.
The purpose of Meta's copying was to train its LLMs, which are innovative tools that can generate diverse text and perform numerous functions.
The judge notes that the case presented no meaningful evidence on market dilution, thus allowing Meta's fair use defense to stand.
It's hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyrighted books to develop a tool to make billions or trillions.
While transformative, LLM training with copyrighted content poses risks of harming the market for those books and may not be considered fair use.
Collection
[
|
...
]