> So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. You made many points in this th

> So far you’ve ignored all of my points touching on the possibility that training AI on copyrighted material might be illegal. You made many points in this thread, and I didn't argue all of them. I don't know why you want me to comment on this specific point? Fine. I agree with you that training AI on copyrighted material _might_ be illegal. In fact, it probably will be declared illegal _somewhere_ (and probably will be declared legal somewhere else). I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have much to contribute to this particular point, not sure why you expect me to comment on it? > You’ve also failed to engage with any points about OpenAI requesting copyright exemption, which I’ve mentioned multiple times and was my first point. Their actions have already demonstrated what I’m saying here, that they know the potential copyright problems with their AI go far beyond overfitting accidents. I agree with this as well. I didn't comment on it, because it was tangential to the point that we were arguing about, and I have nothing of substance to contribute to OpenAI's copyright exemption request. > We haven’t even discussed ChatGPT, but it’s pretty obvious that they would like to have the right to disseminate information and excerpts from copyrighted sources. They want it to overfit on some things, otherwise they can’t improve it’s ability to tell the truth and not hallicinate false information. That also makes sense. > You claim accidental infringement is an unintended failure mode, but it’s a surprise to nobody that a sophisticated copy machine sometimes copies things. Sure. I wouldn't call it a copy machine, but yes, nobody is surprised that the machine _sometimes_ copies things. > I’ve been suspecting for the entire thread that you’re really not understanding nor listening to my argument I still don't understand what the "argument" is. You've made several different statements which I agree with. And then you made one outlandishly incorrect statement, which I disagreed with, and that was the point I argued with you. What you're doing right now is muddying the waters with a thousand unrelated arguments, and I don't know why you're doing that or what you're hoping to achieve. If you can articulate what you believe it is that we disagree on, please go ahead. If you don't know what the disagreement is, then maybe there's no point continuing this conversation further.