Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 03:53:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
>

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?

>
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become a
violation?
>

Two reasons, one is a computer doesn't as of yet have the same rights
and privileges as a human being.
Second is that when a computer reads a book it often is making a copy
of the book in its memory. Which is different from what a human does
when reading a book.