[just_some_guy_2]

It's the same story all over again with AI.

It's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy popular artists, or give legal, medical and physiological advice to random people without possesing any kind of formal qualifications for giving said advice.

If I hired a hundred starving artists and a thousand students to provide the same services, my company would quickly be sued into the ground.

But just fire the people and add AI instead, and then I'm magically no longer responsible for the output. The picture becomes murky and we start to discuss how the AI was trained, if the training data was sourced legally and so on and so forth.

[gregw2]

The same thing ("it's legal because there's no law saying AI isn't allowed to copy"... happened with search engines and the web when they took over from human curated lists of links. They made copies of websites en masse without asking permission of the copyright holders. They supplied enough value that laws were really only enforced or expanded by high-value highly organized rights holders (e.g YouTube removing videos with copyrighted audio.)