{"id":161,"date":"2023-10-25T14:45:28","date_gmt":"2023-10-25T18:45:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/?p=161"},"modified":"2023-10-25T14:45:28","modified_gmt":"2023-10-25T18:45:28","slug":"the-ai-update-october-25-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/2023\/10\/25\/the-ai-update-october-25-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"The AI Update | October 25, 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

#HelloWorld. October swirls with AI headlines, but one senses a running-to-stand-still quality. Like the opening moves in a chess game, players continue to arrange regulatory and litigation pieces on the board, but the first true clash still awaits. Let\u2019s stay smart together. (<\/i>Subscribe to the mailing list<\/i><\/a> to receive future issues.)<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Two more federal copyright lawsuits. <\/strong>Authors and artists deploy more pieces in the burgeoning generative AI litigation wars. On October 17, yet another group of authors, including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, filed<\/a> yet another copyright class action, in the Southern District of New York, targeting large language models (LLMs) trained in part on the controversial text datasets \u201cBooks3\u201d and \u201cThe Pile.\u201d<\/p>\n

One day later, music publishers Universal Music Group, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO struck<\/a> in music capital Nashville. This copyright case focuses on Claude, a ChatGPT-like chatbot from leading AI model developer Anthropic. The publishers claim that Claude was trained on copyrighted song lyrics and can now be induced to output literal and derivative copies of them (example: \u201cI got the eye of the tiger, a fighter, dancing through the fire,\u201d from Katy Perry\u2019s \u201cRoar\u201d). The publishers claim this situation threatens existing licensing markets in which \u201cPublishers license their copyrighted lyrics\u201d to \u201cmusic lyrics aggregators and websites\u201d thereby \u201censuring that the creators of musical compositions are compensated and credited for such uses.\u201d The generative AI battlefronts now span the country, from Northern California through Tennessee to New York.<\/p>\n

Will EU AI Act negotiations continue into 2024? <\/strong>We\u2019ve been tracking developments with the EU AI Act since May<\/a>. Conventional wisdom was that the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission would complete their \u201ctrilogues\u201d and arrive at a final version of the AI Act by the end of 2023. Now that timeline seems under pressure. Reuters reports<\/a> that negotiations could be pushed into \u201cearly next year\u201d and \u201ccould then be further de-railed by the European parliament elections in June.\u201d Apparently, EU policymakers continue to disagree<\/a> over how extensively to regulate the most powerful LLMs and generative AI models, like GPT-4, and how to determine which AI systems will count as the \u201cvery capable foundation models\u201d or \u201chigh impact models\u201d to be subjected to these more stringent requirements. Nonetheless, Dragos Tudorache, the most prominent of the European Parliament members working on the Act, sounds an optimistic note, saying in an interview<\/a> yesterday that the EU is within \u201ctouching distance\u201d of adopting the Act with a \u201cgood 60-70% of the text\u2026already agreed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Google promises to indemnify some users<\/strong>. While litigation brews and regulation remains on the horizon, the big technology players continue to publish private-ordered solutions. Google is the latest, posting<\/a> on October 12 a two-prong approach to indemnifying Google customers against copyright infringement claims:<\/p>\n