If you re-read your comment, you will find that your second paragraph is not evidence for the claim you make in your first paragraph. In fact, your first paragraph is just false.

▲

petilon 3 days ago | parent [-]

Let me explain it this way: If it is legal for a human to learn from a book, then disseminate the knowledge, then it is legal for a machine to do so. You may think this is not right because a machine does it at a much larger scale, but if so laws need to be updated. As it stands now there is no law that says if a human does X it is not a copyright violation but if a machine does the same X it is copyright violation.

	▲	worik 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> If it is legal for a human to learn from a book... True, if the human's access to the book was legal A great deal of training was on the open web, no one should complain. But at least Meta and Anthropic were caught red handed taking copyrighted works, illegally, for training I think international IP laws are too strick and onerous, but they were broken to train these models