Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On 3/2/2025 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 2, 2025 at 2:53:29 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

  On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

    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.

>
  While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
  ideas.  When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
  freely voice them from your understanding.  If, however, you *don't*
  understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
  the book, you violate copyright.

    No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
  the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the
last
  40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the
works
  in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions
of
  books to answer people's questions on the internet.
 

  AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
  understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.

>
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.

 Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
 

But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).

 I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.

When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.

     "Booze works faster than chocolate"
>
wouldn't violate copyright, whereas:
>
     "Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
>
would.