Not OP, but I would say the answer is the same as it would be if you substitute the LLM with a live human person who has memorized a section of a book and can recall it perfectly when asked.
It depends on where the money changes hands, IMO (which is basically what I think youre getting at). If you pay someone to perfectly recite a copywrited work (as you pay ChatGPT to do), then it would definitely be a violation.
The situation is similar with image generation. An artist can draw a picture of Mickey Mouse without any issue. But if you pay an artist to draw you the same picture, that would also be a violation.
With generative tools, the users are not themselves writers or artists using tools - they are effectively commissioners, commissioning custom artwork from an LLM and paying the operator.
If someone built a machine that you put a quartner in, cranked a handle, and then printed out pictures of the Disney character you choose, then Disney is right in demanding them to stop (or more likely, force a license deal). Whatever technology drives the machine, whether an AI model or an image database or a mechanical turk, is largely immaterial.
> An artist can draw a picture of Mickey Mouse without any issue. But if you pay an artist to draw you the same picture, that would also be a violation.
I don't believe that's correct. The issue is not money changing hands but rather the reproduction itself. Even if I give it away for free I'm still violating IP law.
There's also a fundamental issue with your argument - LLMs aren't recognized as having legal agency. If I pay an artist to violate IP law then the artist, being a human, is presumably at fault in addition to myself. Same for a company (owned by people).
But tools are different. If I vandalize someone's car with a hammer the hardware store isn't at fault for selling it to me. I'm at fault for how I chose to use the tool that I purchased (or rented access to in the case of a hosted LLM).
> If someone built a machine that you put a quartner in
This is a flawed example because the machine was designed with the specific intention of reproducing a copyrighted work. That is different from a general purpose tool which can potentially be misused by the wielder.
but without money changing hands, it becomes a whole lot less interesting. at the end of it, the boy who lived isn't a story about broke washed up nobody with an uncouth uncle, standing in line for the soup kitchen; if money goes away, if it turns out this whole capitalism was for a tada, what then?
