[haritha-j]

Perhaps because authors don't want their content to be used for this purpose? Because Microsoft refuses to give me a copy of the source code to Windows to 'inspire' my vibe-coded OS, Windowpanes 12, of which I will not give microsoft a single cent of revenue, its acceptable for me to pirate it? Someone doesn't want to sell me their work, so I'm justified in stealing it?

[rpdillon]

Oh, I'm certain that authors want to take away every right the reader has. This is easy to see empirically: we used to have the first-sale doctrine with physical books, but every digital platform has made reselling either impossible, or a violation of their terms. And yet, courts have rendered judgements that say training an AI model on a book is fair use if the book was obtained legally, meaning no additional license is needed. You assume the authors' permission is needed, but I'm not sure that assumption holds. I think your argument is mostly emotional, rather than legal.

Your use of the word "stealing" is incorrect, but regardless, I'm not condoning piracy, merely examining the incentives we've set up to lead massive, multi-billion dollar corporations from engaging in it.

[a456463]

Exactly! ALL of the LLM companies are complicit in this bullying and theft and so are the AI grifters on LinkedIn.

[rpdillon]

> ALL of the LLM companies are complicit in this bullying and theft

I know this comes across as pedantic, but theft doesn't even come into the equation. Thousands and judges and lawyers have examined this, and there is no argument for theft, at all, in any jurisdiction. Why use such lazy language like this? Just to inflame the discussion?