I agree with the courts. I don't think learning from something is piracy in anyway.
Obviously though this is a very different issue to what the OP was claiming. In that case there is no legal argument at all that they could train on it and the argument is there about moral rights.
Also, you learning something is different than a model learning it, because a model is not a person. You can learn from a book and sell the skills you gained from it, but you can only be in one place at a time. The model can serve that knowledge to every person on the planet simultaneously. We obviously need new laws since this is a fundamentally different situation.
A model is not a person -> we need to write new laws. This is not a job for the courts but for us as a society.
The rest of my argument -> information that helps the courts decide, which generally will look at precedent with humans as that is the closest proxy. When you extrapolate from the law as it pertains to humans, the duplication of books for distributed training seems illegal.
could you give link? Because I remember they said they couldn't verify:
"While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models."
> Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training.
8 September morning, initial press release: "We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."
9 September evening, spokesperson Laurance Fauconnet: "We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster's Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training.
10 September late evening, updated press release: "Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster's Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training. The OpenAI internal model used for this result was developed through large-scale reinforcement learning on top of a previously pretrained model."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority...
It did, but as wikipedia says they updated press release on Sep 10.
Now, its up to audience if they want to believe OAI that they really performed thorough investigation in just one day to rule out what they couldn't rule out in preparation of initial release.
This is pretty reasonable - they had to look at exactly what the cutoff for the models used was, and what data sources at what date. It's not hard if you own the systems.
> they couldn't rule out in preparation of initial release.
The press release was pretty obviously written prior the other claims being released, and the "We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly ..." line was clearly inserted at the last moment.
I agree they should have been more rigorous about checking this before releasing.
I don't like how you layering speculations on top of speculations on top of speculations.
In any case, it's not speculation on speculation. The only speculation is my guess that this statement was a last minute addition, and that is born out by the timeline:
September 6: "After the completion of our full project and Lean verification (on September 6th), believing from the rumor they also had a solution of Navier–Stokes, we reached out to them to offer a concurrent release of our result" (from the press release)
Sep 7: Unknown, but we know there were phone calls and discussion
Sep 8: Buckmaster statement drops (the statement is undated, but this post is 13:28 Sep 8) https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/11723341370570119...
Also Sep 8: The OpenAI press release.
I don't think it's speculation to say there was lots of rushed decision making there, and my speculation is that OpenAI didn't know Buckmaster was going to accuse them of using his transcripts in their work until his statement came out.
I cited two of your speculations. Also, original OAI statement consists of two parts:
1. We did not see
and then right after that:
2. We can't rule out
Since they are contradicting each other, one or both are speculations.
So, its exactly speculation on top of speculation on top of speculations. Sorry, I didn't trace deeper.