One point that stood out to me that I agree with is this:
> It is certainly worth knowing what content has been ingested. Mandating transparency about the content and source of training datasets—the generative AI supply chain—would go a long way towards encouraging frank discussions between disputing parties. But focusing on examples of inadvertent resemblances to the training data misses the point.
I think that’s a good idea because that at least opens the possibility for affected content creators to knock on the AI company’s door and demand parley.
> It is certainly worth knowing what content has been ingested. Mandating transparency about the content and source of training datasets—the generative AI supply chain—would go a long way towards encouraging frank discussions between disputing parties. But focusing on examples of inadvertent resemblances to the training data misses the point.
I think that’s a good idea because that at least opens the possibility for affected content creators to knock on the AI company’s door and demand parley.