If copying someone is bad, and they should be paid for it, that should be universal.
We already have copyright laws, they already prevent people from distributing AI outputs that infringe on intellectual property. If you don't like those laws in the age of AI, get them changed consistently, don't take a broken system and put it on life support.
I find it funny that many people are pro-library and pro-archive, and will pay money to causes that try to do that with endangered culture, but get angry at AI as having somehow stolen something, when they're fulfilling an archival function as well.
What I find funny about your argument is how completely degraded fair use has become when using anything by a corporation capable of delaying and running up legal fees. It sure feels like there are a separate set of rules.
> If copying someone is bad, and they should be paid for it, that should be universal.
But we (i.e. society) don't agree that it is; the rules, laws and norms we have is that some things are bad at scale!
As a society, we've already decided that things at scale are regulated differently than things for personal use. That ship has sailed and it's too late now to argue for laws to apply universally regardless of scale.
I am asking why AI/LLMs should get a blanket exemption in this regard.
I have not seen any good arguments for why we society should make a special exemption for AI/LLMs.
"Scale" isn't a justification for regulatory differences, that's a straw man. We take shortcuts at scale because of resource constraints, and sometimes there are more differences than just scale, and we're over simplifying because we're not as smart as we'd like to imagine. If there aren't resource constraints, and we have the cognitive bandwidth to handle something in a consistent way, we really should.
If we were talking algorithms, would you special case code because a lot of people hit it even if load wasn't a problem, or would you try to keep one unified function that works everywhere?
Distribution and possession are fundamentally different. Cops try to bust people who have large amounts for distribution even if they don't have any evidence of it, but that's a different issue.
Corporations are individuals and can engage in fair use (at least, as the law is written now). Neither corporations nor individuals can redistribute material in non-fair use applications.
School bake sales are regulated under cottage food laws, which are relaxed under the condition that a "safe" subset of foods is produced. That's why there are no bake sales that sell cured sausage, for instance. Food laws are in some part regulatory capture by big food, but thankfully there hasn't been political will to outlaw independent food production entirely.
You're misinformed about all the examples you cited, you should do more research before stating strong opinions.
> You're misinformed about all the examples you cited, you should do more research before stating strong opinions.
You've literally agreed with what I said[1]:
> School bake sales are regulated under cottage food laws, which are relaxed under the condition that a "safe" subset of foods is produced. That's why there are no bake sales that sell cured sausage, for instance. Food laws are in some part regulatory capture by big food, but thankfully there hasn't been political will to outlaw independent food production entirely.
Scale results in different regulation. You have, with this comment, agreed that it does yet are still pressing on the point that there should be an exemption for AI/LLM.
I don't understand your reasoning in pointing out that baking has different regulations depending on scale; I pointed out the same thing - the regulations are not universal.
-------------------
[1] Things I have said:
> Things are scale have different rules (different laws as well) from things done individually or for personal reasons.
> As a society, we've already decided that things at scale are regulated differently than things for personal use.
> You can hold a bake sale at school with fewer sanitation requirements that a cake store has to satisfy.
> many people are pro-library and pro-archive, but get angry at AI as having somehow stolen something
Yes! They're angry that there are two standards, an onerous one making life hell for archivists, librarians, artists, enthusiasts, and suddenly a free-for-all when it comes to these AI fad companies hoovering all the data in the world they can get their paws on.
I.e. protecting the interests of capital at the expense of artists and people in the former, and the interests of capital at the expense of artists and people in the latter.
We already have copyright laws, they already prevent people from distributing AI outputs that infringe on intellectual property. If you don't like those laws in the age of AI, get them changed consistently, don't take a broken system and put it on life support.
I find it funny that many people are pro-library and pro-archive, and will pay money to causes that try to do that with endangered culture, but get angry at AI as having somehow stolen something, when they're fulfilling an archival function as well.