Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Mar 2, 2025 at 7:31:38 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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.

Well, as long you acknowledge that your claim is merely your opinion and
nothing more.