zlacker

> with the right prompts.

that is doing a lot of pull. Just because you could "get the full copies" with the right prompts, doesn't mean the weights and the training is copyright infringement.

I could also get a full copy of any works out of the digits of pi.

The point i would like to emphasize is that the using data to train the model is not copyright infringement in and of itself. If you use the resulting model to output a copy of an existing work, then this act constitutes copyright infringement - in the exact same way that using photoshop to reproduce some works is.

What a lot of anti-ai arguments are trying to achieve is to make the act of training and model making the infringing act, and the claim is that the data is being copied while training is happening.

>>chii+(OP)
>The point i would like to emphasize is that the using data to train the model is not copyright infringement in and of itself.

Interesting point - though the law can be strange in some cases - so for example in the UK in court cases where people are effectively being charged for looking at illegal images, the actual crime can be 'making illegal images' - simply because a precedence has been set that because any OS/Browser has to 'copy' the data of any image in order someone to be able to view it - any defendent has been deemed to copied it.

Here's an example. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgm7dvv128ro

So to ingest something your training model ( view ) you have by definition have had to have copied it to your computer.

>>DrScie+47
That seems to be an artifact of the whole copyright thing predating all forms of computing and memory, but if we don’t ignore that one, we’ve all been illegally copying copyrighted text, images and videos into our RAM every time we use the Internet. So i think the courts now basically acknowledge that that doesnt count as a “copy.”

*Not a lawyer

>>xp84+Si3
Expect I've given you a concrete real counter example of where they do treat copying in memory as 'making a copy'.