说过 ≠ 做过：英伟达否认用盗版书训练 AI，强硬要求法院驳回作家集体诉讼

Core Viewpoint - Nvidia is facing a lawsuit for allegedly using copyrighted books to train its AI models, which the company denies, claiming the accusations are speculative and lack substantial evidence [1][2]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit, titled Nazemian v Nvidia, was initiated by a group of authors in early 2024 and is currently being heard by Judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California [1]. - The plaintiffs allege that Nvidia's AI tools utilized copyrighted books from sources like "shadow libraries," including Anna's Archive and Books3, during the training process [1]. - Nvidia submitted a motion on January 29, 2024, to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to provide concrete evidence that their works were downloaded or used for model training [2]. Group 2: Nvidia's Defense - Nvidia contends that the plaintiffs have not met the basic requirements for a copyright infringement lawsuit, as they did not specify how, when, or which models allegedly contained the copyrighted works [2]. - The company argues that discussions about potential data sources do not equate to actual usage or copyright infringement, emphasizing that the plaintiffs' claims are based on conjecture [2][3]. - Nvidia criticized the plaintiffs for relying heavily on statements based on "information and belief," which the company argues is insufficient for establishing infringement facts at the pleading stage [2]. Group 3: Additional Allegations and Responses - The revised complaint introduced new allegations regarding multiple datasets and models, including discussions about Megatron 345M, which Nvidia argues lack specific explanations on how the plaintiffs' works were used [3]. - The plaintiffs also proposed an "indirect liability" theory linking Nvidia's NeMo Megatron framework to the ability to download public datasets like The Pile, but Nvidia countered that the complaint does not allege any direct infringement by third parties, which is necessary for establishing liability [5]. - Nvidia maintains that merely providing optional tools does not automatically incur liability unless the plaintiffs can demonstrate that users actually used these tools to commit copyright infringement [5].