[thn-gap]

Why is it fair use if you train a model on copyrighted material and use its transformative output, despite going against the will of the author?

Can we all legally pirate educational books since it's for self training and producing transformative outputs? Can I consume all media (books, movies, music) the same way, and call it fair use? Also for software?

[c7b]

Content that hasn't been legally obtained wouldn't be legal to consume in any way. That's not what I meant, and I think that's a bit of a disingenuous interpretation of my comment.

The debate is about content that is generally legally obtained, but might come with certain restrictions. Where restrictions is a broad term and might also just come in the form of a copyleft license, eg. My main point was that in many situations, eg involving open source licenses, it's really not clear from the terms what the creator's intent regarding AI training was. And the broader question is whether training is fair use, or something else, maybe even a new legal concept that would have to be established. Or, what's the difference between art students going to the museum to be inspired, and Dall-E 'looking' at public domain images?

[thn-gap]

I acknowledge I stretched a bit your comment. I meant it as a way to try to find the line on what's OK with these new AIs rather than ill-intended O:)

Regarding your point, I wonder how different is it to break the "terms of use" for fair right, vs breaking the "terms of obtaining" alltogether. They both are about jumping over owner's will, who has the full rights of the work.

I very much look forward to see how the ethics and law around these issues evolve.

[TchoBeer]

yeah, I struggle to see how training AI on illegally gotten data is legal.