2026-04-12 19:03 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@hperrin@lemmy.ca 2026-04-13 03:45
Nobody can verify that the output of an LLM isn’t from its training data except those with access to its training data.
-
@jj4211@lemmy.world 2026-04-12 21:44
Problem is that broadly most GenAI users don't take that risk seriously. So far no one can point to a court case where a rights holder successfully sued someone over LLM infringement. The biggest chance is getty and their case, with very blatantly obvious infringement. They lost in the UK, so that's not a good sign.
-
@badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2026-04-12 19:06
It is their problem until the second they submit it, then it is the project's problem. You can lay the blame for the bad actions wherever you want, but the reality is that the work of verifying the legality and validity of these submissions if being abdicated, crippling projects under increased workloads going through ever more submissions that amount to junk. What is the solution for that? The fact that is the fault of the lazy submitter doesn't clean up the mess they left.
-
@ell1e@leminal.space 2026-04-17 15:27
I agree. However, I think the natural conclusion is an LLM ban. See also [here](https://leminal.space/post/34194962/22403735).