But additionally, part of OpenAI’s argument in the New York Times case is that the only way to make a generalist large language model that performs well is by sucking up gigantic amounts of data. It tells the court that it needs a huge amount of data to make a generalist language model, meaning any one source of data is not that important.
Does that mean that if I steal 10 Dollars each from 10 million people and become filthy rich, the individual thefts are legal because any one theft is not that important if we look at the bigger picture?