[aerodexis]

Reminds me of Blood Meridian where The Judge meticulously sketches the rock glyphs that he comes across, and then destroys the original.

Now that I think about it, The Judge is an apt metaphor for AI : "Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent."

[karahime]

No, it isn't. Nothing about training a model requires this. You're thinking of copyright, which does treat information this way.

[aerodexis]

Sure, I'm conflating the tool w/ the people building the tool - but imo muddling the distinction is good, because the hard distinction is what tricks people into an unthinking mode.

[karahime]

No. Again, it's copyright that says "create a symbolic version and destroy the source, so that the thing may enter a controlled regime". Copyright is, in literal terms, a restriction on your right to copy.

[TeMPOraL]

On the contrary. The problem exists solely in copyright; AI companies are just users that happen to be popular to hate on, but this same legal situation applies to everyone else, including individuals. The issue under discussion is older than LLMs.

[RIMR]

Well, AI and Copyright are both related things that people created, so it's certainly relevant. I don't think the person you're responding to misspoke.