Yet almost inevitably whenever a point is raised about authors getting paid by OpenAI/Microsoft for using their work in closed LLMs, the most common fallacy you

Yet almost inevitably whenever a point is raised about authors getting paid by OpenAI/Microsoft for using their work in closed LLMs, the most common fallacy you get here on HN is that the LLM is “learning” from online content and if humans can learn from what they read freely then we shouldn’t restrict AI from doing the same. If it’s not a humanlike sentient being, then it should be acknowledged as a tool that automatically repackages someone else’s creative work, which should be a violation of intellectual property rights if it’s done for profit of LLM’s operator and without agreement or attribution of the author. Since the legally responsible actor is OpenAI/Microsoft, it is not about preventing any intelligent being from “learning”. But if it is such a being that is a legally human-equivalent actor all on its own, then sure, it can scrape and read online content all it wants—and it also should have rights to not be abused or owned by anyone. We shouldn’t be so naive as to let them have it both ways.