[mannyv]

All these lawsuits will die. Why?

Because people train on corpuses of data all the time, without a license or any attribution.

Every piece of text a writer reads is training that writer. Every image an artist sees helps to train that artist. Every sound a musician hears is training that musician.

That doesn't mean they can't exclude their works from training via a license going foreward. But that becomes an enforcement problem.

[plagiarist]

IIRC courts have already ruled AI-generated works cannot have copyright. So there is already a legal distinction between a human and a model creating works.

I also doubt "humans are just a larger Markov chain than the LLM and they're allowed to" will hold up in court.

[brookst]

I don’t see what eligibility to have works protected has to do with legality of learning.

I really hope “copyright can be used to prohibit reading and learning” does not hold up in court.

Copyright is, and should be, a protection from unauthorized reproduction. Extending it to protect the abstract ideas would be a disaster. And extending it to control stylistic learning would be even worse.

[plagiarist]

You are not understanding and making a lot of assumptions isn't a substitute for that.

[brookst]

Hard to argue with that level of reasoning and sourcing.

[sensanaty]

It's a good thing humans and computers are 2 wholly separate categories of things that have 0 things related to them other than computers being anthropomorphized by AI sycophants!

[anonymousab]

People can do a lot of things that we don't legally allow machines or automation to do.

[Ukv]

True of some things, but not of Fair Use. Automatically generating thumbnails is generally Fair Use, for example.

[gruez]

Like what? The only things I can think of relate to quality/safety (eg. drivers or lawyers).

[anonymousab]

Participate politically, seek employment, and of course the examples you gave.

When pubic safety and goodwill comes in to focus, that's where the role of automation is scrutinized and minimized more heavily. Copyright itself is an invention and area of balancing individual rights and greater public good.

Machines are not human and they are not sentiment and sapient at a level where we can view them differently. Perhaps they will change one day, but as it is today these systems are not entitled to do the same things humans get to do. They are tools performing a task, so the laws apply to them as they apply to, well, machines; copying and reproducing whole code blocks or novel chapters without attribution or licenses is something we allow a human to do in their head and not what we allow a machine to do in a prompt, regardless of the non-human mechanisms in between.

[niam]

Human or not doesn't seem relevant in any jurisdiction which emphasizes copyright as a means to the end of "promoting useful art", as the US Constitution does, rather than an end in itself.

The moral calculus probably changes if machines are deemed capable of producing "useful art", as granting artists temporary monopoly ceases to become the only mechanism of spurring that art.

[edgyquant]

LLMs are not humans and your anthropomorphizing argument is idiotic