Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 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?

 
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.

I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.

That's mindless.

Indeed.