Re: OT: The AIs have it...

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?