[customguy]

> (recommended for humans, but abhorrent for machines).

That's not the criticism, that's the straw man used to dodge the criticism. Of course the straw man makes no sense, that's why it gets put up.

Machines aren't doing anything, humans are doing things, with or without machines.

"It's fine to raise the temperature of your surroundings by 0.0001 degrees by exhaling. It's less fine to set a house on fire, and even less fine to ignite a nuke. But aren't the all the same thing? How hypocritical that raising temperature is okay for some but not others???"

That things can change quality with quantity/frequency is trivially obvious, and you can think of many examples. Bad ones, good ones, doesn't matter. The point of OP stands, all that was added was how absolutely brazen the nonsense is getting.

[thedevilslawyer]

Sorry, but the point stands for you because of you feel about this topic. It does not stand logically.

Ultimately we have to reckon with the fact that there's nothing which is recommended to do X of, but is abhorrent to do 10X of.

[customguy]

> there's nothing which is recommended to do X of, but is abhorrent to do 10X of.

No we don't, because that's nonsense. You can ask a stranger in the street for the time of day once, and they will react very, very differently if you ask them 10 times in a row. You can drive N miles per hour in a school zone, you cannot drive at 10x the speed, and so on.

[thedevilslawyer]

Ok, I see your point. We live with tiny inconveniences, that we would not at 10x.

But I don't see how that relates to copyright or llm at all. 'Learning', at scale, is not an inconvenience, atleast in any forward looking society.