Comment by tjr
Maybe pointless, but I for one disagree with such rulings. Existing copyright law was formed as a construct between human producers and human consumers. I doubt that any human producers prior to a few years ago had any clue that their work would be fed into proprietary AI systems in order to build machines that generate huge quantities of more such works, and I think it fair to consider that they might have taken a different path had they known this.
To retroactively grant propriety AI training rights on all copyrighted material on the basis that it's no different from humans learning is, I think, misguided.
> Maybe pointless, but I for one disagree with such rulings.
That's a fair position: laws are for the nation (and in a democracy, that's supposed to mean the people), and the laws we make are not divine or perfect.
But until the laws change, it is what it is.
> To retroactively grant propriety AI training rights on all copyrighted material on the basis that it's no different from humans learning is, I think, misguided.
I would say it's not retroactive, it's the default consequence of what already is. Changing the law so this kind of thing is no longer allowed in the future is one thing, but it would be retro-active to say it had always been illegal.