what does 'important' mean here?
If the machine can reproduce the process of learning, there should not be a law to prevent such learning from happening. Just like there wasn't a law to prevent the looms from operating while there are weavers out there.
> For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output.
That isn't to say that the computer knows what it is doing and it isn't to say that the computer isn't going to produce a lot of nonsense. But even random markov chain babbling will sometimes produce interesting sentences that make you stop and think. The meaning is in the mind of the reader.
If we think of LLMs as a large mixing pot that combines ideas from vast numbers of written sources in what is often mundane, but may occasionally spark a thought or an imaginative creative leap that humans haven't yet made, they become just another tool that humans can use to think and sometimes see things differently.
No one is asserting that computers themselves should have rights. But their users certainly do. If it is legal for me, a human person, to do something inside my own brain, why would it not also be legal for me to do a rough approximation of the same thing inside my computer?
they consented by virtue of publishing the work. If a human eye can read it, then consent has been given.
and there you've just put your own words into my post. Nowhere did the idea of selling comes into this (nor distribution of any kind).
If you publish, you implicitly allow people to purchase and read your book. The information and ideas learnt off that book is not subject to copyright.
I don't think authors should get royalties on GPT output, and I also don't think OpenAI needs special licensing deals in order to train, but I get that they should at least buy the books.