Anyone writing "humans can learn from art why can't machines" or something to that effect is performatively conflating an organism and a machine.
My issue is with the rhetoric, if that isn't the rhetoric you are using I am not talking about you.
My issue is with the rhetoric, if that isn't the rhetoric you are using I am not talking about you.
Is your argument simply about your interpretation of copyright law and your mentality being that laws are good and breaking them is bad? Because that doesn't seem to be a very informed position to take.
"There is nothing inherently wrong with training machines on existing data..." doesn't really conflate a machine with an organism and isn't what I'm talking about.
If you instead had written "I can read the Cat in the Hat to teach my kid to read why can't I use it to train an LLM?"
Then I do think you would be asking with a certain degree of bad faith, you are perfectly capable of distinguishing those two things, in practice, in your everyday life. You do not in fact see them as equivilent.
Your rhetorical choice to be unable to tell the difference would be performative.
You seem to think I'm arguing copyright policy. I really am discussing rhetoric.