3 ms·
>The fatal flaw in your reasoning: machines aren't humans. I don't see how that affects the argument. The machines are being used by humans. Your argument then
by Suppafly 1y ago
>The fatal flaw in your reasoning: machines aren't humans.
I don't see how that affects the argument. The machines are being used by humans. Your argument then boils down to the idea that you can do something manually but it becomes illegal if you use a tool to do it efficiently.
- const_cast 1y agoIt's not about the tool, how you use it, or even how it works. It's about the end result. I can go through and manually compress "Revenge of the Sith" and then post it online. Or, I can use a compression program like handbrake. Regardless, it is copyright infringement. Can AI reproduce almost* the same things that exist in it's training data? Sometimes, so sometimes it's copyright infringement. Doesn't help that it's explicitly for-profit and seeks to obsolesce and siphon value from it's training material.
- Suppafly 1y ago>Sometimes, so sometimes it's copyright infringement. So in those cases, the original authors might have a case. Generally you don't see these LLM doing that though. >Doesn't help that it's explicitly for-profit and seeks to obsolesce and siphon value from it's training material. Doesn't hurt either. That's a reason to be butthurt, but that's not a legal argument.
- const_cast 1y ago> That's a reason to be butthurt, but that's not a legal argument. It is a legal argument, fair use specifically takes into account the intention. Just using it for commercial ventures makes the water hotter.
- Suppafly 1y ago>It is a legal argument Not a very good one then.