Cecilia Ziniti’s Post

Blind faith on AI is at your own peril. 4 hours before kick off, here’s #ChatGPT with a view - allegedly sourced from UEFA itself!

When someone says "here are my 2 cents," we can actually calculate what they mean. At an output price of $15 per million tokens for GPT-4o, $0.02 buys you 1,333 tokens, which is about 1,000 words. So when you hear that phrase, you can think of it as equivalent to 1,000 words.

🔮 And that makes 26 copyright lawsuits against AI companies! But the latest RIAA suits against AI music generators Suno and Udio, are slightly different from their cohort. For one, they focus explicitly on music generators rather than art or writing or newspaper publishing and they are filed not by the IP holders themselves, but those gaining profit from the IP holders. Mostly---they show a succinct complaint that focuses on one end of the AI black box: the input---moving away from the cocktails of claims we have seen in some prior AI infringement litigation. Attorneys were split on if the RIAA stands on solid ground, with one saying it may be the strongest AI copyright suit yet, and another saying that the RIAA faces a far steeper hill to climb than it realizes. Read more below! (It's fun. We listen to American Idiot and Jason Derulo's producer tag 🙃). For Legaltech News

🚨 BREAKING: Major record labels - including Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group - sue AI music program Suno AI for copyright infringement. Important quotes: "Given that the foundation of its business has been to exploit copyrighted sound recordings without permission, Suno has been deliberately evasive about what exactly it has copied. This is unsurprising. After all, to answer that question honestly would be to admit willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale. Suno’s executives instead speak publicly in exceedingly general terms. For example, one of Suno’s co-founders posted online that Suno’s service trains on a “mix of proprietary and public data,” while another co-founder stated that Suno’s training practices are “fairly in line with what other people are doing.” Piercing the veil of secrecy, an early investor admitted that “if [Suno] had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think that they needed to make this product without the constraints." (page 3) - "Plaintiffs could have proceeded with this action based solely on eliciting that reasonable inference of copying. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ claims are based on much more. In particular, Plaintiffs tested Suno’s product and generated outputs using a series of prompts that pinpoint a particular sound recording by referencing specific subject matter, genre, artist, instruments, vocal style, and the like. Suno’s service repeatedly generated outputs that closely matched the targeted copyrighted sound recording, which means that Suno copied those copyrighted sound recordings to include in its training data. In addition, the public has observed (and Plaintiffs have confirmed) that even less targeted prompts can cause Suno’s product to generate outputs that resemble specific recording artists and specific copyrighted recordings. Such outputs are clear evidence that Suno trained its model on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings." (page 5) - "At its core, this case is about ensuring that copyright continues to incentivize human invention and imagination, as it has for centuries. Achieving this end does not require stunting technological innovation, but it does require that Suno adhere to copyright law and respect the creators whose works allow it to function in the first place. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking an injunction and damages commensurate with the scope of Suno’s massive and ongoing infringement. (page 6) ➡ Read the full lawsuit below. ➡ To stay up to date with the latest developments in AI policy, regulation, and lawsuits, subscribe to my newsletter (link below). #AI #AIcopyright #AIlawsuit #AImusic #Suno #AIregulation

Earlier this year, I saw headlines about lawyers getting slapped for using AI to file briefs that cited cases which don't exist. At that same time, some legal experts I spoke to for unrelated topics were telling me they were interested in using AI as part of their practice. So, I dug into it more for Business Insider. And it turns out there's truly a major, active push for using AI in law. What's most intriguing here is the stakes and what that makes possible. Lawyers are expensive. So firms like Baker McKenzie and info conglomerate Thomson Reuters are spending -a ton- to make it work, and in particular to address technical issues like: hallucination, inference speed, and ability to multitask. Great insight here from Danielle Benecke, Cecilia Ziniti, and Jake Heller. https://lnkd.in/gnMCFyRh