So essentially ai is profitable only if it resells stolen property. Almost as if it’s not intelligent and it only procedurally generates output. The more the better.
Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use it.
Further, what happens if stolen information is posted publicly? (E.g. wholesale copies of full books on html pages?
Just because it's public doesn't mean the viewer has freedom to use it as they see fit.
Where infringement arguably can happen is when that model is used in the generation of content - and if the user is prompting regenerate a protected work, then that is where the infringement happens. But not before. Maybe the various ai services can adequately guard against that illicit usage. Maybe not. And if not, its those live services that would need to be shut down.
But the creation and training of a model, and even distributing that model for people to use with their own computers in private does not engage in copyright infringement.
All digital content is statements about the work. Pictures are pixels with facts about colours. Books are characters describing the words.
AI models are compressed versions of those.
Downloading, ingesting into models, and redistributing them is copyright infringement.
Even if they weren’t compressed; downloading them without permission is not permitted. Every now and then you can read about ai criminals discussing techniques for illegally acquiring books, images and other protected content even here on HN. It wouldnt be an issue if it were licensed content, or a dudette training her local ai. These are companies that want to monetise people’s work. Somehow, just like thieves, they feel they are entitled to snatching someone else’s property.