[bee_rider]

These AI models are just obviously new things. They aren’t people, so any analogy about learning from the training material and selling your new skills is off base.

On the other hand, they aren’t just a copy of the training content, and whether the process that creates the weights is sufficiently transformative as to create a new work is… what’s up for debate, right?

Anyway I wish people would stop making these analogies. There isn’t a law covering AI models yet. It is a big industry at this point, and the lack of clarity seems like something we’d expect everybody (legislators and industry) to want to rectify.

[codedokode]

Model cannot "learn" because it is not a human. What happens is a human obtains "a free copy" of a copyrighted work, processes it using a machine and sells the result.

[bee_rider]

> Model cannot "learn" because it is not a human.

Sure, that’s why don’t like the analogy.

> What happens is a human obtains "a free copy" of a copyrighted work, processes it using a machine and sells the result.

Right, so for example it is pretty common to snip up small bits of songs and to use in other songs (sampling). Maybe that could be an example of somewhere to start? But, these ML models seem quite different, I guess because the “samples” are much smaller and usually not individually identifiable. And really the model encodes information about trends in the sources… I dunno. I still think we need a new law.

[amelius]

Totally agree. Except the current administration probably will interpret things the way they see fit ...