Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9372230" data-attributes="member: 177">The analogy exists because someone used it.&nbsp; You perhaps should refrain from telling people why they did so, because you cannot read minds and may very well be incorrect.With respect - AI minds are not currently provided any of the rights and privileges of humans, so either we are undertaking a grave miscarriage of justice, or there IS a difference between AI minds and human ones. If you are not, in fact, an expert in human cognition, maybe you should wonder if you are in a position to have a relevant opinion on this line.&quot;Permanent&quot; is not a criteria that is used to determine if copyright has been violated. Making a copy of intellectual property in digital format without permission - even into a cache that you will later erase - is generally not allowed unless it is specifically within &quot;Fair Use&quot;.&nbsp; The RIAA has seen to that.As long at the people making generative AIs were doing so for &quot;academic purposes&quot; and providing the results free for academic use, they had an argument that might hold up.&nbsp; Once you start selling the feature, and the results, however, that argument evaporates.Until you have generative AIs required to attend school along with the 8-year-old kids, training an AI is not &quot;education&quot; of that AI.&nbsp; It isn't a sentient being that government and society has a vested interest in developing.&nbsp; It is a tool for a corporation makes to sell for cash.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9372230, member: 177"] The analogy exists because someone used it. You perhaps should refrain from telling people why they did so, because you cannot read minds and may very well be incorrect. With respect - AI minds are not currently provided any of the rights and privileges of humans, so either we are undertaking a grave miscarriage of justice, or there IS a difference between AI minds and human ones. If you are not, in fact, an expert in human cognition, maybe you should wonder if you are in a position to have a relevant opinion on this line. "Permanent" is not a criteria that is used to determine if copyright has been violated. Making a copy of intellectual property in digital format without permission - even into a cache that you will later erase - is generally not allowed unless it is specifically within "Fair Use". The RIAA has seen to that. As long at the people making generative AIs were doing so for "academic purposes" and providing the results free for academic use, they had an argument that might hold up. Once you start selling the feature, and the results, however, that argument evaporates. Until you have generative AIs required to attend school along with the 8-year-old kids, training an AI is not "education" of that AI. It isn't a sentient being that government and society has a vested interest in developing. It is a tool for a corporation makes to sell for cash. [/QUOTE]

Verification