Discussion:
OT: The AIs have it...
Add Reply
moviePig
2025-02-26 20:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Me (to Microsoft Bing):

Which word in this question is misspeled?


Microsoft Bing (to me):

The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Your Name
2025-02-26 21:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Which word in this question is misspeled?
The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Idiotic "AI" and "self-driving cars" are simply the two biggest and
most stupid wastes of time, money, and resources in tech history.
They're both utterly useless and will never work properly. :-\
Rhino
2025-02-26 21:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Idiotic "AI" and "self-driving cars" are simply the two biggest and most
stupid wastes of time, money, and resources in tech history. They're
both utterly useless and will never work properly.   :-\
You're wrong about both AI and self-driving cars.

AI is transforming IT: we talk about it regularly at my IT meetups and
I've seen a number of demos where someone basically describes a problem
they want to solve and sets some parameters, like which programming
language and database they want to use, and the AI writes the program
and test cases and then runs the test cases to ensure that the program
is working correctly. I'm quite concerned that AI is going to put a lot
of developers out of work before too long.

As for self-driving cars, one of the top people at Google's self-driving
car project was a German who lost his best friend in a fatal car
accident at age 20. He set himself the challenge of making traffic
accidents impossible with technology. He and the many others involved in
self-driving cars have done many remarkable things in the last decade or
so, including building cars that have driven an accumulated distance of
millions of kilometers, in many cases with no accident worse than a
fender-bender. They're not perfect yet but they're remarkably good.
--
Rhino
Rhino
2025-02-26 21:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
  Which word in this question is misspeled?
  The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow AIs
are quite capable of non-sequitors (answers that don't make sense in the
context of the question). If you haven't already encountered it, you
should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
--
Rhino
moviePig
2025-02-26 23:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow AIs
are quite capable of non sequiturs (answers that don't make sense in the
context of the question). If you haven't already encountered it, you
should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
To say that today's AIs "lie" is to deceptively anthropomorphize them.
It's important to bear in mind that, despite the lights, nobody's home.
Rhino
2025-02-27 00:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The
correct spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow
AIs are quite capable of non sequiturs (answers that don't make sense
in the context of the question). If you haven't already encountered
it, you should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
To say that today's AIs "lie" is to deceptively anthropomorphize them.
It's important to bear in mind that, despite the lights, nobody's home.
I know the difference between a human being and an LLM (Large Language
Model) you patronizing twat!!

The fact remains that some people will take the output of an AI as TRUTH
and it is *NOT*. Humans created AIs and the AIs clearly have the ability
to lie - and do so. I've seen it myself in live demonstrations.
--
Rhino
shawn
2025-02-27 00:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 19:22:58 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The
correct spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow
AIs are quite capable of non sequiturs (answers that don't make sense
in the context of the question). If you haven't already encountered
it, you should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
To say that today's AIs "lie" is to deceptively anthropomorphize them.
It's important to bear in mind that, despite the lights, nobody's home.
I know the difference between a human being and an LLM (Large Language
Model) you patronizing twat!!
The fact remains that some people will take the output of an AI as TRUTH
and it is *NOT*. Humans created AIs and the AIs clearly have the ability
to lie - and do so. I've seen it myself in live demonstrations.
You mean I can't go visit Trump Gaza now?



I was looking forward to seeing that bearded dancing ladies with Elon.
moviePig
2025-02-27 03:56:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The
correct spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow
AIs are quite capable of non sequiturs (answers that don't make sense
in the context of the question). If you haven't already encountered
it, you should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
To say that today's AIs "lie" is to deceptively anthropomorphize them.
It's important to bear in mind that, despite the lights, nobody's home.
I know the difference between a human being and an LLM (Large Language
Model) you patronizing twat!!
Then perhaps you don't know the difference between a lie and an error...
Post by Rhino
The fact remains that some people will take the output of an AI as TRUTH
and it is *NOT*. Humans created AIs and the AIs clearly have the ability
to lie - and do so. I've seen it myself in live demonstrations.
I don't know what you've seen, but for an AI to actually *lie*, it
would've had to be programmed to do so. i.e., to deliberately render
"facts" it "knows" to be false.
Your Name
2025-02-27 04:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
   Which word in this question is misspeled?
   The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht". The correct
spelling is "weight".
Congratulations on finally understanding that ChatGPT and its fellow
AIs are quite capable of non sequiturs (answers that don't make sense
in the context of the question). If you haven't already encountered it,
you should also be aware that AIs can - and do - lie shamelessly.
To say that today's AIs "lie" is to deceptively anthropomorphize them.
It's important to bear in mind that, despite the lights, nobody's home.
"despite the lights, nobody's home" ... and that's just the fools
programming and peddling this AI idiocy and the ones falling for their
lies.

AI itself doesn't even have any lights ... or it draws four lightbulbs
sticking out of one bulb socket ... or it draws a potato stuck in the
bulb socket ... or ... :-)
Alan Smithee
2025-02-26 23:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
BTR1701
2025-02-27 00:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
shawn
2025-02-27 00:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use. No one is complaining about the AI being trained on
freely available books like those in Project Gutenberg.
BTR1701
2025-02-27 02:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
moviePig
2025-02-27 04:27:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
AI is sometimes disparaged as an expensive version of "auto-complete".
E.g., it builds a text-response by adding words that previous examples
(its "training") have added at similar points. And, indeed, we humans
can use much that same technique without even realizing it. The rub is
that the AI makes such a quasi-copying process explicit.
BTR1701
2025-02-27 05:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library. Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
No but you are checking out each book one at a time. The AI was
trained on a large collection of books so no need to go through the
delaying tactic of checking out a book (digital or physical) from the
library.
None of which has anything to do with copyright. There's nothing in the
copyright statute that says it's only a violation if you read the books
super-quick.
moviePig
2025-02-27 16:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
BTR1701
2025-02-27 17:46:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Nope. Reading them aloud to someone in person is not a public performance any
more than inviting your friend over to watch a movie with you is a public
performance.
moviePig
2025-02-27 22:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Nope. Reading them aloud to someone in person is not a public performance any
more than inviting your friend over to watch a movie with you is a public
performance.
There's a continuum of circumstances there. So, I can read a book to my
friend, but perhaps not to my book club ...not to mention when my book
club tapes my reading for absent members.
Your Name
2025-02-27 21:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Doing a book reading for an audience (especially if they're paying for
a ticket) without the publisher's permission is definitely breaking the
legalese small print in the front of many books.

For example, this is in the front of a random book I took from my home
bookshelf:

"All rights reserved. no part of this publication my be
reproduced, published, performed in public or communicated
to the public in any form or by any means without prior
permission from the publisher or its authorised licensees."

Techncially, even me posting that 'part of the publication' is breaking
those terms and conditions.

Similarly playing a DVD, of video tape in ye olde days, for an audience
needs permission.

Many books and videos also say the product cannot be stored in any kind
of retrieval system without permission, which is one of the legal
problems for some of the silly AI systems "learning" from such material.

Many things, especialy creative works, that you buy you do not actually
own. You simply pay for a 'license' to use them under the terms and
conditions that you agree to when purchasing and/or opening the
packaging. That includes almost all computer software and the operating
systems. Legally, if you break those terms and conditions, the company
that owns the rights could take you to court or simply revoke your
license to use the product. In most cases they don't bother because
it's simply not worth the time and money, unless you're stupid enough
to be trying to make money yourself.
moviePig
2025-02-27 21:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn"
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Doing a book reading for an audience (especially if they're paying for a
ticket) without the publisher's permission is definitely breaking the
legalese small print in the front of many books.
For example, this is in the front of a random book I took from my home
   "All rights reserved. no part of this publication my be
    reproduced, published, performed in public or communicated
    to the public in any form or by any means without prior
    permission from the publisher or its authorised licensees."
Techncially, even me posting that 'part of the publication' is breaking
those terms and conditions.
Similarly playing a DVD, of video tape in ye olde days, for an audience
needs permission.
Many books and videos also say the product cannot be stored in any kind
of retrieval system without permission, which is one of the legal
problems for some of the silly AI systems "learning" from such material.
Many things, especialy creative works, that you buy you do not actually
own. You simply pay for a 'license' to use them under the terms and
conditions that you agree to when purchasing and/or opening the
packaging. That includes almost all computer software and the operating
systems. Legally, if you break those terms and conditions, the company
that owns the rights could take you to court or simply revoke your
license to use the product. In most cases they don't bother because it's
simply not worth the time and money, unless you're stupid enough to be
trying to make money yourself.
Sounds like there's lots of wiggle room in there for a judge...
Ubiquitous
2025-03-02 21:33:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
I thought you supported "dragqueen storybook hour"?

--
Not a joke! Don't jump!
Pluted Pup
2025-03-02 00:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?

"AI" is a futurist buzzword, and *no* part of what is called AI is
actually worth calling it anything but human programmed
software, entirely dependent on specific software programmers
to engineer it, like any other computer program.

And to say it again because it's so obvious no one says it:

software is better, far better, at analyzing someone's
work than it is in generating it's own. True for art,
or anything else, no matter what the Hype Industry says.

Conspicuous with every brag about "AI" is that
the actual parameters to reproduce the result is
never shared, which makes claims about something
"being AI" questionable. And just look at the
results! Every writing turned into obfuscating
corporate speak! Every piece of music rendered inferior
to the original it's copied from!
BTR1701
2025-03-02 03:53:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
shawn
2025-03-02 04:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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.
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.
BTR1701
2025-03-02 04:35:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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.
Post by shawn
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?
Pluted Pup
2025-03-02 04:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.

That's mindless.
BTR1701
2025-03-02 04:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
moviePig
2025-03-02 17:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright. AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
BTR1701
2025-03-02 21:34:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
Post by moviePig
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
moviePig
2025-03-02 22:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
Post by moviePig
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant. But
what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary). For example:

"Booze works faster than chocolate"

wouldn't violate copyright, whereas:

"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"

would.
BTR1701
2025-03-02 23:49:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
Post by moviePig
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
Post by moviePig
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.
Post by moviePig
"Booze works faster than chocolate"
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
would.
moviePig
2025-03-03 03:31:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
Post by moviePig
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
Post by moviePig
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.
When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
"Booze works faster than chocolate"
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
would.
BTR1701
2025-03-03 03:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
Post by BTR1701
Post by Pluted Pup
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
Post by Alan Smithee
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?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
Post by Pluted Pup
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
Post by moviePig
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
Post by moviePig
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.
When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.
Well, as long you acknowledge that your claim is merely your opinion and
nothing more.

Ubiquitous
2025-03-02 21:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Which word in this question is misspeled?
The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht".
The correct spelling is "weight".
... and THAT is why you don't mumble into your microphone!

[Kermanesque improper formatting fixed.]
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Loading...