[KPGv2]

My God, I can't believe chodes are still playing this "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" navel gazing semantic argument. Thirty years at least, it was all you saw on fin de ciecle Slashdot from anyone with a six-digit UID. No one cares about your hyper literalist meaning of "theft," that's not the goddamn point. Christ, this place looks like Reddit more and more.

This isn't a court of law. We don't have to talk like lawyers. If you replaced "theft" with "copyright infringement" in the comment you had such a problem with, what meaningfully changes besides we all have about five additional brain cells?

[visarga]

Even the case for copyright infringement is weak. LLMs are not copying machines, we already have copying machines at much lower price, almost zero, and perfect fidelity and much faster than generating it probabilistically. So it makes no economic sense to spend billions on training and inference to make a copier. In fact the value of LLMs is where they do not copy but apply knowledge a new situation.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If you replaced "theft" with "copyright infringement" in the comment you had such a problem with, what meaningfully changes besides we all have about five additional brain cells?

The obvious difference that copyright is subject to fair use and various other limitations that personal property isn't.

[2ndorderthought]

Ever hear of Aaron swartz?

[AnthonyMouse]

Aaron Swartz was charged under the CFAA, which isn't even copyright law, and the prosecution was widely condemned as draconian overreach.