Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
 

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
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?
>

>
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.

 I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?

AI is sometimes disparaged as an expensive version of "auto-complete". E.g., it builds a text-response by adding words that previous examples (its "training") have added at similar points.  And, indeed, we humans can use much that same technique without even realizing it.  The rub is that the AI makes such a quasi-copying process explicit.