[cj]

I can appreciate how this line of thinking might be attractive.

But IMO the human<>machine comparison doesn't lend itself much credence. We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too. I think some care should be taken when considering if we allow machines to have the same privileges as humans.

[hexage1814]

> We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too

There are no sentient machines (at least yet). Your position is one where you are actually limiting what other humans can do, limiting which tools can other humans have access to. Also, the parameter – according to the law – was always "the same". For instance, there is nothing preventing you from making your own chess league where computers are allowed to compete. FIDE is free to ban you from compete own their leagues or to ban anyone associate with your league or whatever, but there is nothing in the law preventing you.

I have been saying this from the day one: this whole debate it's mainly white-collar workers negatively impacted by automation making up any excuse they can to say why their job should be protected, somehow, for some reason, but not the one of coal miners or what have you.

A human downloads a photo to learn how to draw. Another human downloads a photo to teach their computer how to draw. No difference, no need to obtain any license in any of the cases.

[raincole]

> We shouldn't assume that just because a human is allowed to do something, a machine is automatically allowed to do the same thing, too.

Generally speaking, even one machine can do something, it doesn't automatically mean another machine is allowed to do that.

For example you can drive car with a normal driving license, but not a truck. In some states you can own a pistol but no automatic rifle.

[hexage1814]

It also depends on where this happening. For instance, you don't need a license to drive a car inside your own private propriety. You need a license to drive it on public streets because society needs some assurance that you know what you are doing. So in many cases the laws and restrictions also happen in relation to a given scenario.

[qaq]

copyright exists among other things to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".

[freejazz]

That section is written in parallel verse, with copyright <> science, and patent <> useful arts. This sounds weird, now, but it's consistent with the use of the words at the time, which is the reverse of how they are used today, where paintings etc are considered art, and inventions are considered science. So, it's not that copyright exists to promote science and art (as we call them today) but only just the arts. Patents are for science. Authorship reflects copyright and invention reflects patent:

> Congress shall have the power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

[Paradigma11]

A machine is just a tool. It is the creator and the user of the machine that has the privileges he uses the tool with. I think we should be careful not to anthropomorphize, attribute agency, responsibility and autonomy to something that is essential a better photoshop plugin.

[klabb3]

I don’t think parent anthropomorphizing anything. The ones who anthropomorphize are saying that machines should be covered by fair use, because they have similarities with humans.

This is not about the rights of a machine but about how one human product is consumed by another human product. This is just a commercial supply chain: if you make a model, you need human data. You generally need to compensate your suppliers of “raw material”.

[Paradigma11]

Its not the tool that is covered by fair use. It is the creation of the tool that is covered by fair use.

Is the tool itself supposed to be a copyright violation or is it a tool facilitating copyright violation by producing violating output?

The later is something that can be tested because we have processes to compare works of art for it. If it is shown that LLMs produce mostly infringing art then we can and should ban or heavily regulate them. If not then not.

[klabb3]

> It is the creation of the tool that is covered by fair use.

Copyright doesn’t restrict creation of something, it restricts (mainly) commercial distribution. Research, education and journalism etc are largely unaffected, and would still be.

That said, I believe that selling access to the tool to the public already violates the copyright of the rights holders, even if it doesn’t produce similar works of art. The copyrighted works increased the value of the product (otherwise why would they use it?).

> The later is something that can be tested because we have processes to compare works of art for it.

This is the most expensive, least practical and most arbitrary part of existing copyright. It would be a huge mistake, imo, to expand this dramatically. This problem mostly goes away if the supply chain is sanely regulated.

All you’d need is give access to the training set upon audit, and bureaucrats could check for copyrighted works. There are already automated tools for this.

[Paradigma11]

"That said, I believe that selling access to the tool to the public already violates the copyright of the rights holders, even if it doesn’t produce similar works of art. The copyrighted works increased the value of the product (otherwise why would they use it?)."

So it is similar to how ISPs argue that they should get a cut of streaming services because they enable another product.

I think it is also relevant that more than half of the globe will just completely ignore any regulation and any artist in a country with regulation will just have to compete with ever more empowered artists using all ai has to offer.

[bionhoward]

“It’s just a machine!”

So are you!

[freejazz]

Don't be obtusely misanthropic