Penguin Random House, Copyright, AI

[Quoth]

There is NO intelligence at all in AI. Most of the terminology is actually a lie.
No-one has a clue how to write an intelligent program. Nor can people exactly agree on what intelligence is, except we recognise it. Rooks might be more intelligent than dolphins or chimps. Language (not vocabulary) is puzzling too. Parrots and rooks can learn words and what they refer to, ditto chimps and signing. But none have language.

You can get a so-called AI to return the "training" data, It's not even training, that's misleading. It's a specialist distributed database to store the content and then pattern matching is used. The companies have admitted they want and need entire works.

See https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...-in-ai-warning

I'm not convinced there is a threat to creatives. People I know forced to use AI by their managers say it's junk. It may be a bubble. It is needing huge resources to get the current poor results. They don't want to pay for content because already it's cripplingly expensive.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quoth

There is NO intelligence at all in AI. Most of the terminology is actually a lie.

You seriously need to move on from this. Beating that dogmatic dead horse does no one any good.

There's no cotton in cotton-candy
There's no cotttage in cottage fries
Hoverboards don't really hover
Airplanes don't actually do what birds do
Military intelligence is an oxymoron

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Usually, Quoth is saying that there's a difference between human learning and machine/algorithm training. They're correct, of course, but it's my opinion that it's a difference with almost no distinction.

Yes, and I agree with you.

[Bald Eagle]

Originally Posted by Quoth

There is NO intelligence at all in AI.

This.

It is an advanced pattern matcher. The Ai puts fake case references into its law texts because it 'learned' that such character sequences need to be present to complete the pattern. The Ai puts a fake shutterstock watermark on its pictures because it 'learned' they are an essential part of a picture.
Current Ai is not capable of abstract thought, it cannot reason and cannot understand. It can just rearrange the patterns that were fed to it.
Sometimes that looks like thought, sometimes it is gibberish.

[DiapDealer]

Those would be great points if anyone here was actually arguing that the "intelligence" in A.I. was the same thing as human intelligence.

I'm only arguing that for the sake of the legal copyright opinion swapping going on here, that difference has no actual distinction. Saying that A.I. not being capable of "real" intelligence somehow automagically renders all machine training using copyrighted material copyright violation, IP theft, and plagiarism is a giant non-sequitur. Copyright is not properly honored merely because the entity consuming it "thinks" with meat.

[Bald Eagle]

But since Ai cannot think it cannot create. Output from an Ai cannot be copyrighted because of this. Fun side effect.
However, training Ai with copyrighted works could violate copyright.

[DiapDealer]

Again. Semantics. But at least you said training A.I "could" violate copyright, rather than a definitive "does."