[kgwxd]

If it’s illegal to make any material gain off skills learned through other people’s work, we’re all criminals.

[arduanika]

Computers aren't humans.

I feel like I'm going to be saying a lot in the coming years, as more and more people's brains get broken by false anthropomorphization.

[bitzun]

Maybe getting too off topic for the thread, but it feels like equating machine and human output reaches a level of nihilism even I shudder at. I think (hope) there is intrinsic value in something being made by a human being even if a machine could do comparable work 100x faster.

[arduanika]

On this point, you and I agree.

[feyman_r]

Exactly this. If I read a blog summary of a paywalled article that enhances my knowledge and I use it to do my day job better, did I infringe on the original copyright?

[arduanika]

If you regurgitate the paywalled article verbatim, as a service, for customers, then yes, you infringed. If you didn't, and you didn't build a system that has some probability of doing so, then no, you didn't. How is this so hard to understand.

[feyman_r]

Because it’s a hard problem! there are nuances to this complex problem that need to be thought through before reducing too much.

In this case, then, regurgitation is the problem then, not the fact that it was ‘read’.

If the models ensured that probability of regurgitation is near-zero, would that be ok?

[arduanika]

If I had a gadget that might steal your life's savings, but assured you the probability was "near-zero", would you be ok with that?

Perhaps you personally would be fine with it. But would it be ok for a court declaring that someone has no recourse, and must accept such an uncompensated risk?