in their case, 'fair use' seems more fair - stuff like images, if it's a copyrighted work, are featured as a small resolution thumbnail. meanwhile, AI services

in their case, 'fair use' seems more fair - stuff like images, if it's a copyrighted work, are featured as a small resolution thumbnail. meanwhile, AI services (image generating ones) grab a high resolution copy off the internet (which could be a ding in itself, and also a ding for other "training data" collections which "only post links" (piratebay, anyone?), create a derivative (a model) off of that copy, and then create even more derivatives off of a model (which is an already legally questionable item in itself) in form of model output (which can be as high res as one wants). text based AI services also do some questionable sourcing of material, also create a derivative, a model, and then subsequent output. and the commercialization is more explicit, "this is a service/product/app, pay us for this product, pay us for compute, etc." all of these things steer AI services further and further away from "fair use". AI services truly do not have a strong foothold in trying to pass their stuff as "fair use", let alone trying to argue that their "use" is "fairer" than, say, wikipedia's.