[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.

[lelanthran]

> 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.

Right[1], and humans can do that, no problem - ingesting existing material and recombining them to produce something new (not necessarily unique) is a right that humans are afforded. The question being asked is, since we don't allow that right to any other tools, why does this tool need an exemption?

-------------

[1] Not really (i.e. I don't necessarily agree with this point), but lets assume it for the sake of this discussion.