[californical]

I agree that the fair use argument on training data is a genie that’s not getting put back in a bottle. But:

> If it isn't fair use, then we may need to sue all teachers for spitting out knowledge they ultimately acquired from someone's work.

Is such a lazy argument and always was. A human doing something is necessarily different than a machine doing it. We can be ok with a human doing a thing and simultaneously not ok with a machine doing it.

[hirako2000]

I side with the argument for machines learning being treated differently than human learning.

And in doubt, to pause and forbid commercialisation given the clear impact it's already having on people's financials, humans have invested in a given set of rules that ML are disrupting.

My argument is simply that the ruling for fair use isn't irrational. It's a rationality that you, me and many others would disagree with. Lazy? Yes. Also call it lazy, and biased towards VC's interest who can't squeezed much profit in status quo.