The "distillation" argument always seemed pretty weak to me. If one argues that training an AI on copyrighted content is merely analogous to reading a book (and therefore is fully transformative), then it stands to reason that training an AI on other AI outputs would also be fully transformative.
It seems to me you can't have it both ways; either training is a violation of copyright or it isn't, and there's no consistent argument where "distillation" is a violation but other things aren't.
I don't think they're accusing Chinese organizations of violating copyright or patent treaties, they're more so observing undesired behavior and pushing for domestic strategies to prevent it from happening.
Comments
The "distillation" argument always seemed pretty weak to me. If one argues that training an AI on copyrighted content is merely analogous to reading a book (and therefore is fully transformative), then it stands to reason that training an AI on other AI outputs would also be fully transformative.
It seems to me you can't have it both ways; either training is a violation of copyright or it isn't, and there's no consistent argument where "distillation" is a violation but other things aren't.
I don't think they're accusing Chinese organizations of violating copyright or patent treaties, they're more so observing undesired behavior and pushing for domestic strategies to prevent it from happening.
This argument only makes sense if you equate a printed book with a chatbot. They aren't the same thing, and the chatbot's outputs aren't copyrighted.