Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc>  wrote:
>

1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
>
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html

>
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
>
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
>
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
copyright violation but the other is not?

You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
pass?

"AI" is a futurist buzzword, and *no* part of what is called AI is
actually worth calling it anything but human programmed
software, entirely dependent on specific software programmers
to engineer it, like any other computer program.

And to say it again because it's so obvious no one says it:

software is better, far better, at analyzing someone's
work than it is in generating it's own. True for art,
or anything else, no matter what the Hype Industry says.

Conspicuous with every brag about "AI" is that
the actual parameters to reproduce the result is
never shared, which makes claims about something
"being AI" questionable. And just look at the
results! Every writing turned into obfuscating
corporate speak! Every piece of music rendered inferior
to the original it's copied from!