On 2/20/26 15:09, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
It can't be correct, because if it were, you wouldn't be able to produce a non- infringing work either, if you have ever been exposed to a copyrighted one; the exposure has altered your mental state, so your output is tainted by definition.
There is a legal distinction between what happens in my head and what happens on a device. There has to be, because it is unconscionable for the law to restrict one's thoughts. It is legal for me to read a copyrighted book, even if doing so produces a perfect copy of the same book in my brain. It is not legal for me to copy the same book on a device. My argument is not that a LLM produces output that would be considered copyright-infringing if produced by a human. My argument is that the LLM itself is a violation of copyright, which taints all of its output regardless of what the output looks like. -- Rainer Deyke - rainerd@eldwood.com