I mean.. it feels kinda weird to say that you get to determine how other people use your work? Once you've sold your product, it's out in the open and available for use however the customer wants to use it.

If I bought a cake from your bakery, and then said "I'm going to serve it at my friends' gay wedding!", you couldn't be "hey, no, I don't approve of that". You've already sold me the cake; no take-backsies.

And if I buy a hammer, the hardware store doesn't get to tell me what I'm allowed to build.

▲

JoshTriplett 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If you're arguing for abolishing copyright, I'm all for it.

But as long as copyright exists, AI training should not get any exception to it. That creates an asymmetry, where AI gets to rip off our work and use it to compete with us, while we don't get to do the same with proprietary works (e.g. software).

I don't want a world in which AI can rip off all of my Open Source code and not respect its license, but I can't take macOS and virtualize it and not care what Apple thinks of that.

▲

Windchaser 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you're arguing for abolishing copyright, I'm all for it. But as long as copyright exists, AI training should not get any exception to it.

AFAICT, the courts currently lean towards allowing AI to be trained even without author permission, and this doesn't violate copyright law.

Copyright law says you can't sell unauthorized copies of copywritten works. Doesn't say you need to get author permission before using their works to train AI.

	▲	JoshTriplett 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, the courts are leaning towards creating the exception that I said should not exist, giving an advantage to AI companies over the humans that created the work they've trained on. That is not surprising, but it's still harmful.