That's not how law works in the US. You are presumed innocent and there must be a preponderance of evidence of guilt.

If they can't prove the AI model contains or reproduces exact copies of their copyrighted work, there's no case to be had.

But we can. There are countless documented instances.

OpenAI describes these as "limitations". A more accurate word would be "features".

Is this true? As far as I am aware there are zero pixel for pixel recreations by an image generating AI of any pre-exisiting images and no written work has ever been word-for-word reproduced in full. The closest I've seen are images highly similar to the Mona Lisa which is already copied virtually everywhere without AI and brief passages from commonly copied written works that veer into hallucinations after a paragraph or two.

Why does it need to be exactly the same? You have shifted the goalposts to absurdity.

Because the parent comment says "But we can" in response to the claim that AI can't generate "exact copies." Generating exact copies would be a lot more legally notable than outputs that are only similar or partially copied. As far as I know exact copies haven't happened and was legitimately asking for cases where it has.

No one said otherwise. There is already a case against them, their defense is that they don't know how it works, so it can't be true. This was clearly laid out in the comment I replied to, and the comment that reply was made to in turn.

> That's not how law works in the US. You are presumed innocent and there must be a preponderance of evidence of guilt.

true for criminal cases but this is a civil?

so it's balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt

civil cases is preponderance of evidence.

criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt.

in any light, yes civil cases are about whether you’re more likely than not to be liable