Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: OT: The AIs have it... Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 04:35:20 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <0001HW.2D73E30003BE277030E3ED38F@news.giganews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 05:35:21 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="894792da372130ef9b29698f158cdbce"; logging-data="684399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JjRteJisUtlx+lQF73Qu2" User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS Cancel-Lock: sha1:XzCd8yOaJCZY3Uotjvgh5cTYT4A= Bytes: 3181 On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:04:35 PM PST, "shawn" wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 03:53:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 > wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" wrote: >>>> >>>> > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works... >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html >>>> >>>> I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, >>>> etc. >>>> is a copyright violation in the first place. >>>> >>>> The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than >>>> a >>>> human being reading a book and learning from it. >>>> >>>> Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while >>>> it's >>>> learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >>>> copyright violation but the other is not? >>> >>> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer >>> to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free >>> pass? >> >> No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate >> copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become >> a >> violation? >> > > Two reasons, one is a computer doesn't as of yet have the same rights > and privileges as a human being. Rights and privileges don't enter into it. It's what the U.S. Copyright Statute says that's relevant. > Second is that when a computer reads a book it often is making a copy > of the book in its memory. Which is different from what a human does > when reading a book. So if they programmed the AI to only recognize the book one character at a time (which is probably how it currently works) it would be fine?