> Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but [...] You can't even think in any other terms. > others who aren't clever enough [...] I won't name those p

> Your argument must sound intelligent to you, but [...] You can't even think in any other terms. > others who aren't clever enough [...] I won't name those people, but their username starts with Terr and ends with an underscore. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ____________ > It wouldn't be "fair use". It makes no copies. Incorrect, the real-world behavior we're discussing involves unambiguous copies, where LLM companies scrape and retain the data in a huge training corpus, since they want to train a new iteration of the model when they adjust the algorithms. That accumulation is analogous to photocopying books and magazines that you borrow/buy before returning/selling them again, and arranging your new copies into a clubhouse or company break-room. Such a thing is not usually considered "fair use." In a hypothetical world where all content is merely streamed into a model, then the question of whether model-weights can be considered a copy with a special form of lossy compression is... separate, and much trickier. > Your argument [...] starts from a premise of "of course copyright is the only non-lunatic policy people could ever imagine" Nope, it's just the context of the discussion because it's status-quo we're living with and the one we're faced with incrementally changing. If you're going to rage-post about it, at least stop and direct that rage appropriately. > Stallman is clever to twist the rules a little to get a comparatively sane result from them, but [you don't] recognize that that's what he's doing. I already described the GPL as "fighting fire with fire", I don't understand how the idiom didn't make sense to you.