3 ms·
Learning and then reproducing parts of a work already is illegal, depending on context. Also, “learning” here isn’t the same thing as what college students do.
by vundercind 3y ago
Learning and then reproducing parts of a work already is illegal, depending on context.
Also, “learning” here isn’t the same thing as what college students do. For one thing, you can’t copy-paste a college student’s whole brain. You can’t own and sell their brains (well, ah, you know what I mean—not the organ trade). For another… it’s simply not the same thing. It might be, we suppose, similar to some parts of how human learning work, but it’s plainly not identical and may not be especially close. We use the same word for what LLMs do because it’s a convenient and useful-enough analogy, but that doesn’t mean we can prove anything else simply based on our having re-used the word “learn” here.
“That’s learning, this is learning, so all things that apply to one apply to the other”—no, that doesn’t follow, it takes more than that.
- KoolKat23 3y agoOnly the reproduction is judged whether or not it is too close to the original or not (the physical reproduced item, not the reproduction process or concept). Nothing else is subject to copyright. Copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries. Copyright protects only the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
- brookst 3y agoSure, “learning and then reproducing” is just as illegal as “learning and then dumping toxic waste in a river”. If the complaint is with the second action, as it should be, the learning part is irrelevant.