> Humans have rights. They get to do things that businesses, and machine learning models, or general automation, don't.
So is that a yes to my question?
If humans are allowed to do it for commercial purposes, and it's entirely about human versus machine, then why did you say "Using copyrighted content for commercial purposes should be a violation" in the first place?
> Just like you can sit in a library and tell people the contents of books when they ask,
You know there a huge difference between describing a book and uploading the entire contents verbatim, right?
If "tell the contents" means reading the book out loud, that becomes illegal as soon as enough people are listening to make it a public performance.
> but if you go ahead and upload everything you get bullied into suicide by the US government[1]
They did that to a human... So I've totally lost track of what your point is now.
It's not. Those were what's called examples. There is of course more to it. Stop trying to pigeonhole a complex discussion onto a few talking points. There are many reasons why what OpenAI did is bad, and I gave you a few examples.
So is that a yes to my question?
If humans are allowed to do it for commercial purposes, and it's entirely about human versus machine, then why did you say "Using copyrighted content for commercial purposes should be a violation" in the first place?
> Just like you can sit in a library and tell people the contents of books when they ask,
You know there a huge difference between describing a book and uploading the entire contents verbatim, right?
If "tell the contents" means reading the book out loud, that becomes illegal as soon as enough people are listening to make it a public performance.
> but if you go ahead and upload everything you get bullied into suicide by the US government[1]
They did that to a human... So I've totally lost track of what your point is now.