Re: OT: The AIs have it...

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