The mental calisthenics required to justify this stuff must be exhausting.
It's only exhausting if you think copyright ever reasonably settled the matter of ownership of knowledge and want to morally justify an incoherent set of outcomes that they personally favor. In practice it's primarily been a tool for the powerful party in any dispute to hammer others for disrupting their business model. I think that's pretty much the only way attempting to apply ownership semantics to knowledge or information can end up.
Knowledge consists of, roughly speaking, thoughts.
(a "justified true belief" - per https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/ - is a kind of thought)
The "thinking" part of a "thinking being" - that also consists of thoughts.
If your knowledges are someone's property, you are someone's property.
A society where all knowledge is proprietary, is a society of ubiquitous slavery.
Maybe multi-layered, maybe fractional, maybe with a smiley-face drawn on top.
Doesn't matter.
Are you finding people that actually say this?
When it can quote something like that, it's a training error. A popular enough work gets quoted and copied by people online, and then it's not properly deduplicated. It's a very small fraction of works it can do that with, and the cleaner your data the less it happens.
I'll once again quote that stable diffusion launched with fewer weights than training images. It had some accidental memorizations, but there wasn't room for its core functionality to be memorization-based.
Copy/pasting at scale, yes
Code gets turned into tokens and then it learns the next most likely token.
The issue that I see most people talk about it the scale at which is learnt.
A human will learn from other people’s code but not from every persons code.
Copyright law is very clear that if a machine does it, the original copyright on the input is kept. This is why your distributed binaries are still copyrighted, because the machine transformed, very significantly, the source code into binary which maintains the copyright throughout.
It would be inconsistent for the courts to suddenly decide that "actually, this specific type of machine transformation is actually innovative."
I know this is generally really bad for the AI industry, so they just ignore it until a court tells them they can't anymore. And they might get away with it as I don't have faith that the courts will be consistent.
It's perfectly reasonable to say it's okay for humans to do something but not okay for a computer program to do the same thing. We don't have to equate AI to humans, that's a choice and usually a bad one.
It would not be reasonable to allow machines to do that at unlimited scale without restrictions.
(Hopefully the fossil fuels industry won't draw inspiration from the legal arguments made by AI companies...)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to catch a metal shuttle that chucks itself through the air on wings.
The relevant extension of your analogy is should birds be required to obey FAA rules? Or should plane factories be protected as nesting sites?
I mean I don't think think I could find a better description for following the derivatives of error in reproducing a set of works as creating a "derivative work".
I agree. However, the reverse is also likely true, i.e., it cannot currently be denied that learning in humans is different from learning in artificial neural networks from the point of view of production of works that mix ideas/memes from several works processed/read. Surely, as the article says, copyright law talks exclusively about humans, not machines, not animals.
Edit*: Or perhaps put more pseudo legally that the created works infringe on the copyrights of the original human creators.
I have seen LLMs do all sorts of crap which was clearly reproduction of training material.
This is also why people are most impressed with how much better it is at reproducing boilerplate rather than, say, imaginative new ideas.
Are you for stealing and against learning?
We know exactly what is happening in both cases. We can talk about that, or we can use obfuscating euphemisms that make our preferred position seem obviously true.
Or is it "plagiarism"?
