[Meph504]

The argument isn't small crime vs large crime. It is no crime regardless of scale.

If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. And any derived works produced from that information isn't theft or copyright violation.

Though I do think there is a valid gripe with the LLMs being trained on pirated materials. I've also personally learned from a lot of PDF of textbooks I didn't own.

[dtn]

> If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine.

Is there a name for the fallacy when people act like models and algorithms should be granted the same rights as human beings?

[simianparrot]

AI psychosis would be my term. When you attribute to software the characteristics of a human you are in a psychosis.

[Meph504]

Many things share characteristics with human, we have for decades created methods for systems to emulate and synthesize those characteristics. It is sort of delusional to think that the abilities of humans can't be produced by other systems, it is a severe delusion to think that proposing a machine can do it, is psychosis.

[simianparrot]

That’s not the topic. Read the post I replied to. No matter what a piece of software will never be a human.

[Meph504]

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested software are people.

But in the same regard it is very likely at some point the ability to simulate a human mind and persona is a real possibility.

[Meph504]

Is it a fallacy? Can you provide a legal or logical basis for this being treated differently.

[lelanthran]

Hammers aren't granted rights.

Tools aren't granted rights. Why do we need to make an exemption for AI?

[Meph504]

Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

In a sane world, things produced by tools are owned and credited as creations by the users of tools, there are many who seem to argue that isn't the case with AI.

And that some how, that anything produced based on the knowledge it was trained on is some sort of plagiarism or copyright violation of the original source material even when none of that material is present in the end result?

So if we can't just leave it at its a tool, then we have to look at existing frameworks of laws and ethics to make the case of how this should be treated.

[dtn]

I'll just take my tools (video camera) into a cinema to learn off the latest Hollywood flicks. It's not an accurate 1:1 representation to the original source material, so the output that I've produced from it belongs to me.

[Meph504]

Are you trying to make a shoestring argument?

Sure you can do that, but because there are several laws against that specific action already, you will be likely face prosecution, and the content (something poorly duplicated, not created) would be seized.

But lets assume, that your camera has an LLM in it, and it trained in this fashion, and you performed this action on countless other films, and then the camera could produce wholly unique and original work that did not have any duplication of the original works it sampled. The work produced would not be a violation of copyright, nor would it be plagiarism.

Just as someone whose education was to watch a large number of movies, and then created their own based on that education.

But as previously mentioned you may face the ramifications of violating the agreement you had for accessing the original source material in an illegal way.

[lelanthran]

> Well because no one is attempting to claim that the structures or products produced by using Hammers are plagiarism?

Of course they are! Is a video recorder not a tool? No one is claiming rights for video recorders.

Once again, the status quo is that tools do not get rights, the burden is on you to prove why an exemption should be made, not on those who are asking "why should tools get rights?"

[Meph504]

Actually the burden is to prove that what AI is producing is plagiarism or copyright violation, this isn't about some special right, but that there are many making the case that things produced by AI are duplication of their work.

I'm also not sure where the concept of "the tool" be given a right to anything, That certainly isn't my argument, the right of the work should be to the user/owner used to create things with the tool. There are several pieces in the SFMOMA that use automation to create art, that art is credited to the creator of the machine, not the machine, I see AI in a similar lens.

You are intentionally selecting a device that makes duplicates of things as your comparator, so I can't tell if that is biased or some sort of flaw in your argument.

But an LLM being trained on works, and generating something based off of that training is not a duplication of any specific copyrighted material, and is wholly unique is not duplication.