You probably know by now that the AI models powering ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other chatbots are trained on seemingly infinite databases of published works, containing hundreds of millions of books, online articles, academic papers, and basically anything you can find on the internet. Most published authors have, without their knowledge or consent, contributed to the development of the same AI tools that threaten to undermine their livelihoods. That seems illegal, right?
“Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” the judge wrote, comparing the way an LLM ingests trillions of words to a writer’s study of literature.
Gellis thinks the ruling is more advantageous for AI companies. What’s a $1.5 billion fine to a company projecting about$200 billionin annual revenue by 2028?
“Everybody is very worried right now because the law is all over the place, and it’s because of this question,” Jason Henderson, Senior Attorney and Founder of the IP & Media Practice at JWL International, told TechCrunch. “They know that the AI model has been trained on so much stuff, and the law has not really caught up to that question.”
Henderson is referencing a case in which the media and technology company Thomson Reuters sued the research firm Ross Intelligence for copying its content in order to build a competing, AI-based legal platform.
“Ross’s use is not transformative because it does not have a ‘further purpose or different character’ than Thomson Reuters’s,” Judge Stephanos Bibaswrotelast year.
In that case, Judge Bibas decided that it was not fair use to train on Reuters’ content to make a new platform that would directly compete with it. While authors could potentially argue that chatbots are competing with them by using their works to generate new, synthetic books, that argument has not yet prevailed in court.
“If you write your novel in [Microsoft] Word and run spell check, we kind of feel comfortable with the idea of saying that Word does not own your novel,” Gellis said. “[AI] is forcing us to look at a whole bunch of decisions that we kind of ignored for a while.”
Most AI companies are still lodged in pending litigation over these issues, which means that we won’t have a definitive solution to these problems any time soon.
“What you are seeing is that the initial opening volleys are being influential, and that influence itself could be undone if other courts decide different things, and it’ll take later states of litigation to figure out which one will prevail,” Gellis said. “But in the meantime, all these decisions are shaping everything that’s happening. It would be kind of foolish for the AI companies to ignore them.”
Amanda Silberling is a senior writer at TechCrunch covering the intersection of technology and culture. She has also written for publications like Polygon, MTV, the Kenyon Review, NPR, and Business Insider. She is the co-host of Wow If True, a podcast about internet culture, with science fiction author Isabel J. Kim. Prior to joining TechCrunch, she worked as a grassroots organizer, museum educator, and film festival coordinator. She holds a B.A. in English from the University of Pennsylvania and served as a Princeton in Asia Fellow in Laos.
In less than 48 hours, your chance to save up to $300 on your tickets will end!