Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9371634" data-attributes="member: 4937">The problem with analogies is that unless there is a one to one and onto relationship between the analogy and the thing that it is supposed to represent, then the analogy exists to confuse and obfuscate truth and not illustrate it.  And this is just such an analogy.  It exists entirely to keep people from thinking clearly about the issue by providing a false analogy.  There is no meat or sausage in the real thing we are discussing.  It's obvious why you'd rather talk about meat and sausage than the thing itself.  There isn't really a way to even make your sausage and meat analogy work because the things are too different.  For example, sausage is a "collage" or "mosaic" of meat, but as I've already pointed out that analogy of a collage or a mosaic is itself deceitful and wrong about how AI text and art is produced and those that use it are liars (and have to use human produced collages to represent the supposed AI work).  The AI doesn't really store pieces of what it consumes.  It stores the contextual relationships it discovered between the things.  The more it trains the less information it has about any one text or image.   It's learning patterns, and the patterns between thing that make up language or art are not and cannot be copyrighted.  Nor does your analogy work because it didn't take anything from the owner.  It didn't even use a meat printer to make an illegal copy of the meat (if that even could be a thing and even if the law protected against it).  A better analogy would be that it looked at the meat and made a painting of it, but that analogy is so weird that while it is more accurate than your sausage analogy it's probably best that we just don't use analogies at all because I doubt you understand why that analogy is more accurate.No, I don't.  That's the point.  I see no (relevant) difference between a human mind being inspired by art and an AI mind being inspired by art.  No, in my case, quite the contrary.  Digital piracy is obviously theft.  The people going "If purchasing isn't owning then piracy isn't theft" are moral cretins that are trying to justify theft.  Even if I can see why you might worry about the digitization of information and the lack of physical copies, that still doesn't justify theft.  But no piracy occurred in this case because no permanent copy of the information was made.  [USER=12731]@CapnZapp[/USER] 's analogy doesn't work because it doesn't represent what actually happened.  (And I again protest that analogies don't bring clarity, but only confusion.)  What really happened was more like a student in a trade school opening the hood of a car to see how cars worked, then giving it back intact to the owner.  But again, I don't think analogies are actually helpful.In reality, the only copy that was made was the temporary copy that is made when anything on the internet is viewed, which is an essential aspect of the technology without which the whole internet must be taken down.  Do you understand how the internet works? If I read something I had every right to read and make fair use of the information then I have done no wrong.  The burden of proof you have to make is that teaching an AI isn't fair use of information.  I argue that it's analogous to teaching a child.  I would point out that a copyright only applies to copies of the information, and not to original information produced by studying that information.  Everyone is influenced by everything that they have ever read, but that doesn't mean you have to cite everything you ever read.  John Williams is influenced by everything he ever heard, but isn't required to list all of his inspirations in his liner notes.  Transformative work is transformative work.</blockquote>

Verification