Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:04:35 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

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.

Rights and privileges don't enter into it. It's what the U.S. Copyright
Statute says that's relevant.

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.

So if they programmed the AI to only recognize the book one character at a
time (which is probably how it currently works) it would be fine?