3 ms·

As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly then why is there a need for a license? If someone uses the phrase "and with that there's a tremendous implicit shi

As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly then why is there a need for a license? If someone uses the phrase "and with that there's a tremendous implicit shift" for the first time in a copyright text, then after having read that my brain regurgitates it as I'm writing my own text, and I include that phrase. Is that plagiarism? Because it would be a ridiculous precedent to be honest, regurgitation is most of what our species does. I feel like, as other have pointed out, modern models learn in roughly the same way we do (but with very limited scope) and that idk, it's a shock to people that we do the same things as these models do? But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something

fouric 3y ago
See my below comment, which covers: > As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly ...because (1) we currently have no guarantees that a model won't regurgitate it wholly (or enough that it's infringing according to the law and/or common sense) and (2) because the model itself is either (a) modification and redistribution of the content (in which case it violates those licenses) or (b) some new act not covered by existing copyright law, in which case the authors haven't consented to it because the licenses they've distributed their content under only cover the modification and redistribution cases. > regurgitation is most of what our species does Sure, there's a continuous spectrum from repeating a single new word ("jank") to a whole book - and one is clearly copyright infringement, and the other isn't - but you still have to acknowledge that partial reproductions of an artistic works can still be owned by the author. A single chapter of Harry Potter is still owned by J.K. Rowling. > But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something You act like it's somehow not obvious that a model is not a person, and vastly different sets of moral codes and legal rules apply to each.

fouric 3y ago

See my below comment, which covers: > As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly ...because (1) we currently have no guarantees that a model won't regurgitate it wholly (or enough that it's infringing according to the law and/or common sense) and (2) because the model itself is either (a) modification and redistribution of the content (in which case it violates those licenses) or (b) some new act not covered by existing copyright law, in which case the authors haven't consented to it because the licenses they've distributed their content under only cover the modification and redistribution cases. > regurgitation is most of what our species does Sure, there's a continuous spectrum from repeating a single new word ("jank") to a whole book - and one is clearly copyright infringement, and the other isn't - but you still have to acknowledge that partial reproductions of an artistic works can still be owned by the author. A single chapter of Harry Potter is still owned by J.K. Rowling. > But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something You act like it's somehow not obvious that a model is not a person, and vastly different sets of moral codes and legal rules apply to each.