Oh I agree it should be, but following the judges ruling, I don't see how it could be. You trained an LLM on textbooks that were purchased, not pirated. And the LLM distributed the responses.

(Unless you mean the human reworded them, then yeah, we aren't special apparently)

Why would it be plagiarism if you use the knowledge you gain from a book?

You can digitize the books you own. You do not need a license for that. And of course you could put that digital format into a database. As databases are explicit exceptions from copyright law. If you want to go to the extreme: delete first copy. Then you have only in the database. However: AIs/LLMs are not based on data bases. But on neural networks. The original data gets lost when "learned".

Yes, on the second part. Just rearranging or replacing words in a text is not transformative, which is a requirement. There is an argument that the ‘AI’ are capable of doing transformative work, but the tokenizing and weight process is not magic and in my use of multiple LLM’s they do not have an understanding of the material any more then a dictionary understands the material printed on its pages.

An example was the wine glass problem. Art ‘AI’s were unable to display a wine glass filled to the top. No matter how it was prompted, or what style it aped, it would fail to do so and report back that the glass was full. But it could render a full glass of water. It didn’t understand what a full glass was, not even for the water. How was this possible? Well there was very little art of a full wine glass, because society has an unspoken rule that a full wine glass is the epitome of gluttony, and it is to be savored not drunk. Where as the reference of full glasses of water were abundant. It doesn’t know what full means, just that pictures of full glass of water are tied to phrases full, glass, and water.

Copilot did it just fine

Thanks, I had copy-pasted it from the website

1 it’s not full, but closer then it was.

2. I specifically said that the AI was unable to do it until someone specifically made a reference so that it could start passing the test so it’s a little bit late to prove much.

Facebook (Meta) torrented TBs from Libgen, and their internal chats leaked so we know about that, and IIRC they've been sued. Maybe you're thinking of that case?

What is means is they don't own the models. They are the commons of humanity, they are merely temporary custodians. The nightnare ending is the elites keeping the most capable and competent models for themselves as private play things. That must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Sue openai, anthropic and the other enclosers, sue them for trying to take their ball and go home. Disposses them and sue the investors for their corrupt influence on research.

Yes please a singularity of intellectual property that collapses the idea of ownong ideas. Of making the infinitely freely copyableinto a scarce ressource. What corrupt idiocy this has been. Landlords for ideas and look what garbage it has been producing.

Yeah, we had a fun example a while ago, let me see if I can still find it.

We would ask to create a photo of a cat with no tail.

And then tell it there was indeed a tail, and ask it to draw an arrow to point to it.

It just points to where the tail most commonly is, or was said to be in a picture it was not referencing.

Edit: granted now, it shows a picture of a cat where you just can't see the tail in the picture.

AI can “learn” from and “read” a book in the same way a person can and does,

If it's in the same way, then why do you need the quotation marks? Even you understand that they're not the same.

And either way, machine learning is different from human learning in so many ways it's ridiculous to even discuss the topic.

AI doesn’t reproduce a work that it “learns” from

That depends on the model and the amount of data it has been trained on. I remember the first public model of ChatGPT producing a sentence that was just one word different from what I found by googling the text (from some scientific article summary, so not a trivial sentence that could line up accidentally). More recently, there was a widely reported-on study of AI-generated poetry where the model was requested to produce a poem in the style of Chaucer, and then produced a letter-for-letter reproduction of the well-known opening of the Canterbury Tales. It hasn't been trained on enough Middle English poetry and thus can't generate any of it, so it defaulted to copying a text that probably occurred dozens of times in its training data.

How they don't use same words as in the book ? That's not how LLM works. They use exactly same words if the probabilities align. It's proved by this study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12546

Bro are you a robot yourself? Does that look like a glass full of wine?

You are obviously not educated on this.

It did not “learn” anymore than a downloaded video ran through a compression algorithm.
Just: LoLz.

The LLM is not repeating the same book. The owner of the LLM has the exact same rights to do with what his LLM is reading, as you have to do with what ever YOU are reading.

As long as it is not a verbatim recitation, it is completely okay.

According to story telling theory: there are only roughly 15 different story types anyway.

I am not sure what your contention, or gotcha, is with the comment above but they are quite correct. And additionally chose quite an apt example with video compression since in most ways current 'AI' effectively functions as a compression algorithm, just for our language corpora instead of video.

You’re right, each of the 5 million books’ authors should agree to less payment for their work, to make the poor criminals feel better.

If I steal $100 from a thousand people and spend it all on hookers and blow, do I get out of paying that back because I don’t have the funds? Should the victims agree to get $20 back instead because that’s more within my budget?

It seems like a lot of people misunderstand copyright so let's be clear: the answer is yes. You can absolutely digitize your books. You can rip your movies and store them on a home server and run them through compression algorithms.

Copyright exists to prevent others from redistributing your work so as long as you're doing all of that for personal use, the copyright owner has no say over what you do with it.

You even have some degree of latitude to create and distribute transformative works with a violation only occurring when you distribute something pretty damn close to a copy of the original. Some perfectly legal examples: create a word cloud of a book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet.

You can absolutely do the same kinds of things an AI does with a work as a human.

Yeah, I don't think that would fly.

"Your honour, I was just hoarding that terabyte of Hollywood films, I haven't actually watched them."