zlacker

>>pyman+(OP)
I'm not seeing how this is fair use in either case.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't these works being digitized and transformed in a way to make a profit off of the information that is included in these works?

It would be one thing for an individual to make person use of one or more books, but you got to have some special blindness not to see that a for-profit company's use of this information to improve a for-profit model is clearly going against what copyright stands for.

>>trinsi+pL
They clearly were being digitized, but I think its a more philosophical discussion that we're only banging our heads against for the first time to say whether or not it is fair use.

Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings. Digitization is just memory. If the models cannot think then it is meaningless digital regurgitation and plagiarism, not to mention breach of copyright.

The quotes "consistent with copyright's purpose in enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress." and "Like any reader aspiring to be a writer" say, from what I can tell, that the judge has legally ruled the model can think as a human does, and therefore has the legal protections afforded to "creatives."

>>jimbob+uN
> Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings.

No, that's fallacious. Using anthropomorphic words to describe a machine does not give it the same kinds of rights and affordances we give real people.

>>palmot+aP
Actually, it does, at least for this case. The judge just said so.

>>jimbob+VQ
People have rights, machines don't. Otherwise, maybe give machines the right to vote, for example?...

>>NoOn3+2Z
If I can use my brain to learn, I as a human can use my computer to learn.

Its like, taking notes, or google image search caching thumbnails. Honestly we dont even need the learning metaphor to see this is obviously not an infringement.

>>protoc+xQ1
> If I can use my brain to learn, I as a human can use my computer to learn.

No, you can't. The only thing you can learn with is your own mind (e.g. loading notes into your laptop is not you learning).

>>palmot+Nl2
Right but there's more potential reproducibility in the notes than the AI model. Like other than some philosophical aversion to the word "Learn" its clearly not infringing.

>loading notes into your laptop is not you learning

I dont want to get too distracted by this, but tptb really hate me (questioning american notions of excellence draws the eye of sauron) and have limited my posting. Note taking is actually crucial to my actually learning things. I am largely a kinaesthetic learner, but when it comes to pure data retention, if I am not writing it out, it goes straight through. Note taking is crucial to my learning new things and retaining data, and I know I am not the only one.

Heck its a common (or was common) for writers to completely rewrite, by hand the books of "great" authors to try and learn their "voice".