Sarah Silverman's musical proves the affirming power of pee
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Yahoo
Meta Wins Case Over Its Use of Copyright-Protected Content to Train AI
This story was originally published on Social Media Today. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Social Media Today newsletter. One of the most significant (yet less flashy) considerations of the new wave of generative AI tools is the copyright implications of such, both in terms of usage (can you own the rights to an AI-generated work?) and generation (are AI projects stealing artists' work?). And both, at least at present, fall into somewhat awkward legal territory, because copyright laws, as they exist, haven't been designed to cater to AI content. Which means that, technically, it remains difficult to prosecute, on either front. Today, Meta has had a big court win on this front, with a federal judge ruling that Meta did not violate copyright law in training its AI models on original works. Back in 2023, a group of authors, including high-profile comedian Sarah Silverman, launched legal action against both Meta and OpenAI over the use of their copyrighted works to train their respective AI systems. The authors were able to show that these AI models were capable of reproducing their work in highly accurate form, which they claim demonstrates that both Meta and OpenAI used their legally protected material without consent. The lawsuit also alleges that both Meta and OpenAI removed the copyright information from their books to hide this infringement. In his assessment, Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Meta's use of these works was considered 'transformative,' in that the purpose of Meta's process is not to re-create competing works, necessarily, but to facilitate all new uses of their language. As per the judgment: 'The purpose of Meta's copying was to train its LLMs, which are innovative tools that can be used to generate diverse text and perform a wide range of functions. Users can ask Llama to edit an email they have written, translate an excerpt from or into a foreign language, write a skit based on a hypothetical scenario, or do any number of other tasks. The purpose of the plaintiffs' books, by contrast, is to be read for entertainment or education.' As such, the judge ruled that because the re-use of the works was not intended to create a competing market for these works, the application of 'fair use' in this case applies. But there are a lot of provisos in the ruling. First, the judge notes that the case 'presented no meaningful evidence on market dilution at all,' and without that element spelled out in the arguments, Meta's defense that it can use these works under fair use is applicable. Just judge also notes that: 'In cases involving uses like Meta's, it seems like the plaintiffs will often win, at least where those cases have better-developed records on the market effects of the defendant's use. No matter how transformative LLM training may be, it's hard to imagine that it can be fair use to use copyrighted books to develop a tool to make billions or trillions of dollars while enabling the creation of a potentially endless stream of competing works that could significantly harm the market for those books. And some cases might present even stronger arguments against fair use.' So essentially, the judge is saying that while the intention of use in this case is not to facilitate the creation of competing works, thereby harming the copyright holders and their capacity to generate income from their work, it's inarguable that AI models will facilitate such. But in this instance, the case against Meta did not state this element clearly enough to find in the plaintiffs' favor. So while it may seem like a blow for artists, enabling generative AI projects to essentially steal their work for their own purpose, the judge is really saying that there is likely a legal case that would apply, and would potentially enable artists to argue that such use is in violation of copyright. But this particular case hasn't made it. Though that's still not great for artists seeking legal protection against generative AI projects, and unlicensed usage of their work. Just last week, a federal judge ruled in favor of Anthropic in a similar case, which essentially enables the company to continue training its models on copyright-protected content. The sticking point here is the argument of 'far use,' and what constitutes 'fair' in the context of re-use for alternative purpose. Fair use law is generally designed to apply to journalists and academics, in reporting on material that serves an educational purpose, even if the copyright holder may disagree with that usage. Do LLMs, and AI projects, fall into that same category? Well, under the legal definition, yes, because the intent is not to re-create such work, but to facilitate new usage based on elements of it. I guess, in that sense, an individual artist may be able to win a case where an AI work has clearly replicated theirs, though that replication would have to be indisputably clear, and there would also, presumably, have to be a level of benefit gleaned by the AI creator to justify such. And also, people can't copyright AI-generated works, so that's another wrinkle in the AI legality puzzle. There's also a whole other element in both of these cases which relates to how both Meta and Anthropic accessed these copyright-protected materials in the first place, amid claims that these have been stolen off dark web databases for mass-training. None of those claims have been proven as yet, though that's a separate factor which relates to a different type of content theft. So where do we stand on legal use of generative AI content? Yeah, it's pretty unclear, and the judge in this case is saying that there may be a different legal argument that could win in such a case. But this isn't it, and because the laws haven't been designed with AI in mind, what exactly the legal case needs to be is not entirely clear. But we haven't established a precedent to stop AI training on copyright-protected works as yet. Recommended Reading Meta To Face Legal Scrutiny Over the Use of Copyright Protected Works To Train AI Models Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNET
27-06-2025
- CNET
Today's NYT Mini Crossword Answers for June 27
Looking for the most recent Mini Crossword answer? Click here for today's Mini Crossword hints, as well as our daily answers and hints for The New York Times Wordle, Strands, Connections and Connections: Sports Edition puzzles. There's a beachy vibe to today's Mini Crossword, which I love. But then I tripped up on 8-Across, until I filled in more clues. Need some answers? Read on. And if you could use some hints and guidance for daily solving, check out our Mini Crossword tips. The Mini Crossword is just one of many games in the Times' games collection. If you're looking for today's Wordle, Connections, Connections: Sports Edition and Strands answers, you can visit CNET's NYT puzzle hints page. Read more: Tips and Tricks for Solving The New York Times Mini Crossword Let's get to those Mini Crossword clues and answers. The completed NYT Mini Crossword puzzle for June 27, 2025. NYT/Screenshot by CNET Mini across clues and answers 1A clue: Beach trees Answer: PALMS 6A clue: Beach view Answer: OCEAN 7A clue: Beach keepsake Answer: SHELL 8A clue: Removed, as wrapping paper Answer: TORE 9A clue: What miso paste is made from Answer: SOY Mini down clues and answers 1D clue: Feed fillers Answer: POSTS 2D clue: Sound before a blessing Answer: ACHOO 3D clue: Cautious Answer: LEERY 4D clue: Like seahorses that give birth Answer: MALE 5D clue: Show for Sarah Silverman and Sarah Sherman, for short Answer: SNL
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Yahoo
US court sides with Meta in authors' copyright lawsuit
A federal judge has ruled in favour of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright infringement lawsuit from a group of authors. The authors claimed that Meta had used their works without permission to train its artificial intelligence technology. According to the US District Judge Vince Chhabria, the authors 'made the wrong arguments'. Chhabria also said that 'in the grand scheme of things, the consequences of this ruling are limited. This is not a class action, so the ruling only affects the rights of these 13 authors—not the countless others whose works Meta used to train its models'. The plaintiffs include comedian Sarah Silverman and authors Jacqueline Woodson and Ta-Nehisi Coates. Their lawyer, as reported by AP, said the 'court ruled that AI companies that 'feed copyright-protected works into their models without getting permission from the copyright holders or paying for them' are generally violating the law. 'Yet, despite the undisputed record of Meta's historically unprecedented pirating of copyrighted works, the court ruled in Meta's favour. We respectfully disagree with that conclusion.' Meta has expressed its appreciation for the court's decision. 'Open-source AI models are powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and fair use of copyright material is a vital legal framework for building this transformative technology,' Meta was quoted by the publication as saying. The ruling follows another decision from US District Judge William Alsup, who found that AI company Anthropic did not break the law by training its chatbot on millions of copyrighted books. However, Anthropic must still face trial for acquiring those books from pirate websites. Judge Alsup's ruling highlighted that the AI system's process of distilling from thousands of works to produce its own text was 'quintessentially transformative' and qualified as 'fair use' under US copyright law. The developments come as Meta's investment in Scale AI has boosted the data-labelling startup's valuation beyond $29bn. As part of this deal, Scale AI founder Alexandr Wang will lead Meta's AI efforts while continuing to serve on Scale AI's board. "US court sides with Meta in authors' copyright lawsuit " was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
