[kube-system]

The standards applied are exactly the same regardless of what tools are used. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a dumb AI, a general purpose AI, or a Xerox machine.

If you want an exception to copyright, you're going to want to start looking at a section 107 (of the copyright act) exception: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

The reason someone walking down the street and humming a song is not a violation is because it very clearly meets all of the tests in section 107.

The biggest problem with feeding stuff through a black box like an LLM is it isn't easy for a human to determine how close the result is to the original. An LLM could act like a Xerox machine, and it won't tell you.

[zelon88]

I think this conversion has corrected some misgivings I had about the AI copyright argument. My takeaway is;

Possession copyright material is not inherently infringing on a copyright. Disseminating copyright material is unless you meet section 107. AI runs afoul of section 107 when it verbatim shares copyright material from its dataset without attribution.

[kube-system]

> AI runs afoul of section 107 when it verbatim shares copyright material from its dataset without attribution.

Technically, the AI doesn't run afoul. The person disseminating the copyrighted material does.