> If anthropic Hoovers up the world’s books and trains on them, and then spits them out verbatim on command, then it will clearly impact the value of the work; nobody will buy the original, they’ll just ask Claude.
Ah, right. So if we want models to be capable we need them to be trained on as much as possible, yet we also want to stop what you described. So what can be done?
Why would reading copyrighted material ever be an issue anyway? Wouldn't copyright law only apply to what you create and publish using the model? Training on every comic book should already be perfectly legal, as long as you accessed them legally, right? But publishing your own Batman comic using that training is copyright infringement.
What I'm saying is, doesn't the law already cover 1?
I keep hearing that "the average person hates AI", but their revealed preference is different. Any time they need to make anything that takes effort a lot of people immediately turn to ChatGPT.
People don't like to consume AI-made things but they sure like to use it.
I am religious, but I think this approach is not the best. It requires that we specifically define what that one thing that separates us from the AI is. Not only is that very hard to do, there is always the chance that the AI can do it after all, and now the goalposts keep shifting.
It is better to develop a theology that can incorporate human-level or super-human level intelligence that isn't a zero-sum game.
# The muddle-headed developer
[Github profile](https://github.com/magarnicle)