The only thing I’ve been claiming is that AI training is not copyright violation
What’s the point? Are you talking specifically about some model that was trained and then put on the shelf to never be used again? Cause that’s not what people are talking about when they say that AI has a copyright issue. I’m not sure if you missed the point or this is a failed “well, actually” attempt.
It can’t be both. It’s not self-driving. That’s just what they call it to oversell it. I’m assuming they had to add the “Supervised” part for legal reasons.
Learning what a character looks like is not a copyright violation
And nobody claimed it was. But you’re claiming that this knowledge cannot possibly be used to make a work that infringes on the original. This analogy about whether brains are copyright violations make no sense and is not equivalent to your initial claim.
Just find the case law where AI training has been ruled a copyright violation.
But that’s not what I claimed is happening. It’s also not the opposite of what you claimed. You claimed that AI training is not even in the domain of copyright, which is different from something that is possibly in that domain, but is ruled to not be infringing. Also, this all started by you responding to another user saying the copyright situation “should be fixed”. As in they (and I) don’t agree that the current situation is fair. A current court ruling cannot prove that things should change. That makes no sense.
Honestly, none of your responses have actually supported your initial position. You’re constantly moving to something else that sounds vaguely similar but is neither equivalent to what you said nor a direct response to my objections.
The NYT was just one example. The Mario examples didn’t require any such techniques. Not that it matters. Whether it’s easy or hard to reproduce such an example, it is definitive proof that the information can in fact be encoded in some way inside of the model, contradicting your claim that it is not.
If it was actually storing the images it was being trained on then it would be compressing them to under 1 byte of data.
Storing a copy of the entire dataset is not a prerequisite to reproducing copyright-protected elements of someone’s work. Mario’s likeness itself is a protected work of art even if you don’t exactly reproduce any (let alone every) image that contained him in the training data. The possibility of fitting the entirety of the dataset inside a model is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
This is simply incorrect.
Yet evidence supports it, while you have presented none to support your claims.
When an AI trains on data it isn’t copying the data, the model doesn’t “contain” the training data in any meaningful sense.
And what’s your evidence for this claim? It seems to be false given the times people have tricked LLMs into spitting out verbatim or near-verbatim copies of training data. See this article as one of many examples out there.
People who insist that AI training is violating copyright are advocating for ideas and styles to be covered by copyright.
Again, what’s the evidence for this? Why do you think that of all the observable patterns, the AI will specifically copy “ideas” and “styles” but never copyrighted works of art? The examples from the above article contradict this as well. AIs don’t seem to be able to distinguish between abstract ideas like “plumbers fix pipes” and specific copyright-protected works of art. They’ll happily reproduce either one.
That sound weird to me. How big is the population of people who are technical enough to even check what certificate provider you are using but ignorant enough to think that let’s encrypt is bad because it’s free?
From the article:
and
So this is actually worse than just blocking screen capturing. This will break video calls for some setups for no reason at all since all it takes to break this is a phone camera - one of the most common things in the world.