zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
For me it's quite obvious that if you make a profit from an engine that has as an input copyrighted material, then you owe something to the owner of this copyrighted content. We have seen this same problem with artists claiming stable diffusion engines were using their art.

>>lp4vn+e4
If you study copyrighted material for four years at a university and then go on to earn money based on your education, do you owe something to the authors of your text books?

I'm not sure how we should treat LLMs with respect to publicly accessible but copyrighted material, but it seems clear to me that "profiting" from copyrighted material isn't a sufficient criteria to cause me to "owe something to the owner".

>>gwrigh+m8
Do people ever get tired of this argument that relies on anthropomorphizing these AI black boxes?

A computer isn't a human, and we already have laws that have a different effect depending on if it's a computer doing it or a human. LLMs are no different, no matter how catchy hyping them up as being == Humans may be.

>>sensan+ci
> we already have laws that have a different effect depending on if it's a computer doing it or a human

which laws?

we generally accept computers as agents of their owners.

for example, a law that applies to a human travel agent also applies to a computerized travel agency service.