[zdyn5]

Devil’s advocate (not for robots.txt idea specifically but for the general pushback against AI infringing on copyrights): It’s generally accepted that it’s okay for a human to look at publicly available code, text, and images, and learn from it and then become inspired to form new code, text, and images (all for free) even with commercial intent. Is there a significant difference with AI doing the same thing?

[timeuser]

When a human recalls something from memory, the process of remembering itself alters the memory. It's an analog process. So a human creating art, code etc. based on their knowledge and memory is an inherently flawed analog copying process at best. Digital copies and processes are perfect and reproducible unless you alter their algorithm or data. These models are more like an applied form of lossy digital compression. We already treat analog copies and digital copies differently for copyright and many other purposes. At least that's how I'm thinking of it right now.