Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is "theft" misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they're extracting general patterns and concepts - the "Bob Dylan-ness" or "Hemingway-ness" - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in "vector space". When generating new content, the AI isn't recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it's learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It's more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others' work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can't be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there's precedent for this kind of use being considered "transformative" and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it's understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it "theft" is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn't make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
As others have said, it isn't inspired always, sometimes it literally just copies stuff.
This feels like it was written by someone who invested their money in AI companies because they're worried about their stocks
Lol
I think you may have a much more generous understanding of the current capabilities of AI than what it's actually capable of. It isn't Data from Star Trek.
Pretty much. It's just weird this whole thread Feels like it was written by a marketing person.
Developers used to get hounded for blockchain by sales people.
Now the same people have moved to AI. Companies love it mainly because they can steal work, summarise it a bit, and profit. Some things were literally tracked down to specific web pages as the source
It's asinine to compare AI with block chain. Block chain uses are very limited while my own 60 year old mother uses AI in her work. It depends on your work but there's immense use cases for AIs, and most people that use it regularly can attest it's a huge productivity boost even if it isn't perfect and it has to be verified.
I also suggest you look up copyright laws. It's clearly transformative. If collage is legal, how can AI not be?
Not to mention that we use AI already everyday. Any app that identifies songs, plants or insects uses AI. So does Google translate or your autocorrect on your phone (I'm not entirely certain about the second one).
If our government won't force these companies to copyleft the models, the least they could do is not create a walled garden where only Microsoft and Google can afford to train models, something you are advocating without realizing. You are essentially being a mouthpiece for big AI companies and big data companies who are trying to shoot open source in the foot.
Individuals aren't getting a dime, this is about if we can run these models on our PC or only through their subscription service.
This isn't college.
And that's not how AI works.
AI literally just copies bits of lots of sources and cobbles it together.
It has no idea what any of it means. We learn via experience. AI models won't
If I write a reference book, I need to reference my source if I'm quoting things. Even if I saw it in 2 different books .
AI does not
Question.. if there is only 1 source of information on a topic, and AI needs to reference it, what happens? It basically just copies it and changes a few words. No reference to the original author. It doesn't even know.
If I read a book into a podcast and change a few words, take credit and don't give any to the original author is that ok?
It's not AI. That's a marketing term like blockchain. Its just a combined data scraper with some random data.
I know how AI works. I was using collage to show that it's much less transformative than AI while still being accepted.
It also doesn't copy bits. It has an internal network of bits and it shifts their weight with each images. It's learning from the images akin to how a human would, not copying. This is far from a perfect analogy, there's a mountain that separates a human brain from a neural network, it's just that both processes would be copying under your definition.
This is a tool to help and guide. In terms of LLMs, trying to get references out of it is just a terrible use case. It's suppose to be verified at all times and clearly should never be itself quoted.
For images, this is like expecting each artists to reference what influenced them. Having unrealistic thoroughly invented expectations doesn't mean the tech is failing or bad.
This kind of attitude has some weird "everything has to be true on the internet" vibe. I wouldn't expect actual truth and references from reddit posts, I don't understand why people expect it from a guided rng machine.
If you read a hundred books and then built a podcast episode on what you learned from all those book, that would be okay and is a lot closer to what llms are doing.
That's what AI is. 98% of machine learning is scrapping data and training models on it.
It's not AGI, it's not general intelligence, and it's not comparable to a human (well, you can compare anything, but human and ML are just very different things in tons of ways).
But it is AI. The ghosts that chase Pacman are AI. A search algorithm is also AI, dammit. Of course an LLM is AI. Any agent that maximizes a function is AI. You are just embarrassing yourself.