Maybe it's borderline ridiculing (though I don't think so) but I do think I'm offering a different perspective on what's happening with AI; it's "learning", not "owning" or "taking" anything, just like a human brain (obviously not scientifically just like a human brain, exaggerated for easier understanding).
And I'm also not trying to bring people to any side, I'm not personally for or against AI learning on publicly available material, just providing a different perspective by veiling it in a slightly contrived example made with the position but "against" humans rather than AI.
Even if you think the model is learning in the exact same way a human does, you can't pretend it uses the information in the same way. A human, if it really wanted to, could study your style and imitate your blog posts maybe once a day, with varying levels of quality. An AI can do that a million times a day, perfectly, forever, basically for free. It's simply not a good comparison.
Nobody is concerned with AI learning from their content, they are concerned with how the AI will use their content, and there is no useful comparison between AI usage and human usage.
No, it's not learning like a human, it's fitting parameters to a function. AI will never conduct a science experiment to determine the veracity of the data it's indexing, or have an emotional reaction to it.
I bet it can do some experements if given a (thoughtful) request, resources/access. (I had ChatGPT control my Linux box through me, it gave commands and reasoning for it, I gave it the output... Another time I had it write an answer, give search terms to verify the claims, I gave the output, and it fixed the answer with actual citations.)
It can imitate reasoning and emotions better than some people I know at least.
The problem is copyright. Current AI landscapes are basically "copyright for me but not for you".
I would be fine if we just abolish copyright. I wish for a world with AttributionRight instead of copyright.
I don't think you're being charitable enough. GP point is actually thought-provoking (at least to me): doing it for humans doesn't make sense. Does it make sense to do it for AI? The more advanced the AI, the less sense it makes.
I think it's related with the "substantive elaboration" test with regards to copyright (sorry I can't remember the proper term). If I just copy a scene from your movie, you can probably sue me. If I take some elements from it, but do my own thing so that it read more like a parody/comment / meta-comment, then it's ok.
Is AI just parroting back stuff or is it creating new things? A few years ago, I would have said it's just parroting. With the current models I think we are midway (it will depend on the propmt too!). In a couple of years my bet is that we'll be clearly on the "creating new thinfs territory".
We're not discussing self aware AIs like we see in science fiction; it's just a bunch of cool machine learning algorithms. I think that the word learning here is a bit of a red herring.
It's cool that the algorithms are generic enough an can be specialised with training data, but it's a very very far cry from anything resembling basic awareness, much less the level of awareness mammals have.
This is your opinion. Many experts (the majority right now?) do see the beginning of general intelligence and I would urge you to at least entertain the possibility that those experts are right.
(Also, general intelligence is not usually synonymous with self awareness in the literature. You might want to argue that, but it's, I think, a minority opinion)
Is it really that unreasonable to believe that an author:
a) is fine, and maybe even motivated by, the fact that a fellow human will read or watch their work to learn, improve their craft, grow as a person, etc.
b) is offended by the fact that a faceless multi-billion company will appropriate their work to create a for-profit product that will make their shareholders a little bit richer?
And I'm also not trying to bring people to any side, I'm not personally for or against AI learning on publicly available material, just providing a different perspective by veiling it in a slightly contrived example made with the position but "against" humans rather than AI.