No -- the controversy is also over whether distributing the weights and software is a copyright violation. I believe that is. The copyrighted material is present in the software in some form, even if the process for regenerating it is quite convoluted.
It's not as clear-cut as you think. The courts have held that both google thumbnails and google books are fair use, even though they're far closer to verbatim copies than an AI model.
The reason those are allowed is because they don't compete with the source material. A thumbnail of a movie is never a substitute for a movie.
LLMs seek to be a for-profit replacement for a variety of paid sources. They say "hey, you can get the same thing as Service X for less money with us!"
That's a problem, regardless of how you go about it. It's probably fine if I watch a movie with my friends, who cares. But distributing it over the internet for free is a different issue.
>The reason those are allowed is because they don't compete with the source material. A thumbnail of a movie is never a substitute for a movie.
>LLMs seek to be a for-profit replacement for a variety of paid sources. They say "hey, you can get the same thing as Service X for less money with us!"
What's an LLM supposed to be a substitute for? Are people using them to generate entire books or news articles, rather than buying a book or an issue of the new york times? Same goes for movies. No one is substituting marvel movies with sora video.
