The building owner is using a replication of the copyrighted work. The owner should absolutely compensate the original creator.

But the printing company that the building owner hires to print the poster doesn’t owe the original creator anything. Even though it is directly replicating copyrighted work, and certainly benefiting from doing so. If the printer were selling the copyrighted works directly then that would be a different matter and they would have to compensate the original copyright owner. So clearly context matters.

An AI doesn’t even make a replication of the original work as part of its training process.

If the AI then goes on to create a replication, or a new work that is similar enough to the original that copyright applied, and intended to use the work in a context where copyright would apply, then absolutely. That would constitute a breach of copyright.

It is the work itself that is copyrighted, not the knowledge/ability to create the work. It’s the knowledge of how to create the work which is encoded in the neural network.

Lots of people benefits from freely distributed content. Simply benefiting from it is not enough to justify requiring a license fee.

Hypothetically speaking, let’s say a few years down the line we have robot servants. I have a robotic care giver that assists me with mobility. Much as I may have a human care giver today.

If I go to the movies with my robot care giver, they will take up a seat so I would expect to pay for a ticket, just as I would for a human care giver. Do I then need to pay an extra licensing fee for the robots AI brain to actually watch the movie?

What if it’s a free screening? Should I still have to pay for the robot brain to “use” the movie?

Is the robot “using” the movie in some unique and distinct way compared to how I would be “using” the movie?

“What does that have to do with a person or corporate entity training an ai?”

Training a human neural network is analogous to training an artificial neural network.

Whether the employee paid to watch a movie doesn’t matter, they could have just as easily watch something distributed for free. The transaction to consume the content is, as you said irrelevant to the corporation.

An AI consuming a copyright work is no different to a human consuming a copyright work. If that work is provided for free consumption, why would the owner of the AI have to pay for the AI to consume it?

How is it any different to an employee “using” the work? Corporations don’t pay licensing when an employee gets inspired by a movie they saw last night.

Why do you keep mentioning corporations? An AI could just as easily be trained by an individual. I’ve written and trained a few myself.

Education is irrelevant in this context. The copyrighted works people consume through education is a tiny fraction of the total number of copyrighted works that most people experience through their lives. And all of those experiences contribute to that person’s capabilities.

The exemption for education’s purposes is for presenting copyright material to students in an education setting. It has nothing to do with copyright work that the student might seek out themselves.

Technically it remembers the relationships between words, those relationships are encoded in its neural network. It doesn’t just copy the text.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_(machine_learning_model)

So companies have to pay a licensing fee to every artist who’s work that employees of that company have ever looked at?? Yeah, I don’t think that’s how it works.

What does moral or legal equivalence to humans have to do with anything?

The point is that all AI has to do to learn from art is look at it. If someone makes their art free to look at, then it’s free for an AI to look at.

Just looking at a piece of art is enough to encode it into a human’s neural network. Why should it be any different for an artificial neural network? If it’s free to access then it’s free to access.

Combination + mutation. It allowed evolution through natural selection to give us every life form on earth. Creativity works exactly the same way.

No, there is no difference. Creativity is just combination and random mutation. It’s how humans are creative, it’s how machines are creative. It’s the same thing.

Are human artist paying royalties to everyone who’s art they scraped off the web??

It’s not a problem until you start making money off other peoples work.

That’s exactly my point.

The learning isn’t the problem, the selling is.

Nothing wrong with playing/singing other people’s songs, I sing along to the radio in my car all the time.

All musicians learn from hearing other music.

There is a difference between learning and copying.

Just because something is free to access, doesn’t mean you are allowed to remember it or learn from it any way!!

Though the may sound similar, they have different etymology and different meaning.

Mankind: human beings considered collectively; the human race:

It’s perfectly acceptable to use “mankind” to refer all humans.

All your points are based on anecdotal evidence and therefor compromised by your internal bias. There is nothing to argue against, other than pointing out that your conclusions are subjective.

You should probably see a therapist.

That’s called “projection”. Please spend less time on social media and go learn about the actual world.

You do realise that there are billions of people that don’t need marijjuana or anti-depressants, right? This might just be a you thing, are you seeing a therapist??

It’s very much a two step forward one step back situation. Yes, there has been some recent regression in the tolerance of trans people, but it’s still significantly more tolerant than 40 years ago. This is pretty much par for the coarse when pushing society forward. When you make a change that 90% of the population agree with, the other 10% is going to kick up a fuss.

There will always be ups and downs, but the overall trend line is undeniably positive.

I’m not sure a good argument can be made that the US is any more politically unstable than it was 50 years ago. People do tend to have short memories for the turmoil of days gone by.

“Honesty” and “truth” are very different things. One does not imply the other.

You know it’s just a drawing right??