> Based on the comment you replied to, it seems they are indeed producing verbatim copies.
Well i'll leave it to the legal system to decide if that's true.
But in any case, that's no different from a human with a photographic memory doing the same thing after reading a paragraph. We don't blame them for their superior memory, or being inspired by the knowledge. We don't claim they've violated copyright because their memory contains an exact copy of what they read.
We may still demand that they avoid reproducing the exact words they've read, even though they are capable of it -- which is fine. We can demand the same of AI's. All I object to, is the idea that a smart AI, with a great memory is guilty of something just by reading or viewing content that was willingingly shared online.
If I tell you water is wet and the sky is blue, will you be waiting for a court case to grind through the appeals process on that as well? The examples in the filing were unambiguous. You can go look it up and see them, they were also cited in all the news articles I saw about it. The AI regurgitated many paragraphs of text with very, very few small modifications.
The issue at hand is not if some words were copied; it's a legal issue of whether that constitutes legal or otherwise fair use or not. And I'm not a lawyer, and am happy to wait for the court to decide.
But to be honest, I don't really care one way or the other, since it doesn't get to the heart of the matter as I see it. To my mind, it's no different than a human with a good memory doing the same thing.
Specifically, it isn't the consumption of the media that is the problem, or even remembering it very well. Rather, it is the public verbatim reproduction of it, which a human might inappropriately do as well. AI's need to be trained to avoid unfair use of source material, but I don't think that means they should be prohibited from consuming public material.
