No it's a tool, created and used by people. You're not treating the tool like a person. Tools are obviously not subject to laws, can't break laws, etc.. Their usage is subject to laws. If you use a tool to intentionally, knowingly, or negligently do things that would be illegal for you to do without the tool, then that's still illegal. Same for accepting money to give others the privilege of doing those illegal things with your tool without any attempt at moderating said things that you know is happening. You can argue that maybe the law should be more strict with AI usage than with a human if you have a good legal justification for it, but there's really no way to justify being less strict.

That's legal just don't look at them or enjoy them.

Bangs gabble gavel.

Gets sack with dollar sign

“Oh good, my laundry is done”

Good luck fitting it in RAM lol.

Fuck the AI nut suckers and fuck this judge.

Yeah I have a bash one liner AI model that ingests your media and spits out a 99.9999999% accurate replica through the power of changing the filename.

cp

Out performs the latest and greatest AI models

So authors must declare legally "this book must not be used for AI training unless a license is agreed on" as a clause in the book purchase.

Sounds like natural personhood for AI is coming

calm down everyone.
its only legal for parasitic mega corps, the normal working people will be harassed to suicide same as before.

its only a crime if the victims was rich or perpetrator was not rich.

mv will save you some disk space.

From dark gray to slightly darker gray.

I call this legally distinct, this is legal advice.

Unpopular opinion but I don't see how it could have been different.

• There's no way the west would give AI lead to China which has no desire or framework to ever accept this.
• Believe it or not but transformers are actually learning by current definitions and not regurgitating a direct copy. It's transformative work - it's even in the name.
• This is actually good as it prevents market moat for super rich corporations only which could afford the expensive training datasets.

This is an absolute win for everyone involved other than copyright hoarders and mega corporations.

Right. Where's the punishment for Meta who admitted to pirating books?

Unless you're moving across partitions it will change the filesystem metadata to move the path, but not actually do anything to the data. Sorry, you failed, it's jail for you.

...no?

That's exactly what the ruling prohibits - it's fair use to train AI models on any copies of books that you legally acquired, but never when those books were illegally acquired, as was the case with the books that Anthropic used in their training here.

This satirical torrent client would be violating the laws just as much as one without any slow training built in.

This 240TB JBOD full of books? Oh heavens forbid, we didn’t pirate it. It uhh… fell of a truck, yes, fell off a truck.

It's extremely frustrating to read this comment thread because it's obvious that so many of you didn't actually read the article, or even half-skim the article, or even attempted to even comprehend the title of the article for more than a second.

For shame.

But if one person buys a book, trains an "AI model" to recite it, then distributes that model we good?

I don't think anyone would consider complete verbatim recitement of the material to be anything but a copyright violation, being the exact same thing that you produce.

Fair use requires the derivative work to be transformative, and no transformation occurs when you verbatim recite something.