Copyright doesn't apply just to stuff copied verbatim though, it applies to a lot more. It really doesn't matter if it is or isn't stored verbatim. Translations and derivative works are not exact copies and still fall under copyright. Copyright even applies to broad things such as "a concept of a character" and this can result in some pretty strange arguments some copyright holders might use, such as "Sherlock Holmes that doesn't smile is public domain, but Sherlock Holmes who shows emotion is copyright infringement" as described here.

It doesn't matter if an exact copy of the book was made. It matters if the core information that book carried was taken as a whole and used elsewhere. And even though the data was transformed as statistical information, the information is still there in that model. The model itself is basically just an "unauthorized translation" of hundreds of thousands of works into a very esoteric format.

The whole argument of "inspiration" is also misleading. Inspiration is purely a human trait. We're not talking about humans being inspired. We're talking about humans using copyrighted material to create a model, and about computers using that model to create content. Unless you'd argue that humans should be considered the same thing as machines in the eyes of the law, this argument simply doesn't work.

Look up RAM copy doctrine. It is pretty easy to argue they are making a copy.

Aptly put 👏

I agree that cashing in is at least important part of this. As I understand it, however, past a certain point creating and using LLMs is in fact extremely expensive. That's why GPT4 limits user interactions, for example. I also think that the more restricted these tools are in general, the better for everyone. It's absolutely possible to use them in positive ways, but as it stamps they are mostly just flooding the internet with garbage at killing low level content jobs.

This isn't how it works at all. I can, and should, and do, read and consume all sorts of media with the intention of stealing from it for my own works. If you ask for writing advice, this is actually probably one of the first things you'll hear: read how other people do it.

So this does not work as an argument, "the intent of the reading" because if so humans could never generate any new media either.

Your logic is flawed in that derivative works are not a violation of copyright. Generally, copyright protects a text or piece of art from being reproduced. Specific characters and settings can be protected by copyright, concepts and themes cannot. People take inspiration from the work of others all the time. Lots of TV shows or whatever are heavily informed by previous works, and that's totally fine.

Copyright protects the reproduction of other peoples work, and the reuse of their specific characters. It doesn't protect style, themes, concepts, etc. IE. the things that an AI is trying to derive. So like if you trained your LLM only on Tolkien such that it always told stories about Gandalf and the hobbits, then that would be a problem.

"Reading with intent?" that sounds ridiculous. The only thing of concern is the work produced.

US Courts have already ruled in the past that human authorship is required for copyright. It'd be a logical conclusion as such that human authorship would also be required to justify a fair use defence. You providing a summary without any quotations would likely justify fair use - which is still copyright infringement, but a mere defence of said infringement. A machine or algorithm that cannot perform the act of creative authorship would thus not be exempted by the fair use defence.

To read it in the first place, before you summarize it, you need to obtain it legally by either buying it, or checking it out from the library (which has bought it).

Hi, it's me the author!

First of all, thanks for reading.

In the article I explain that it is not exactly what authors do, we reading and writing are an inherently human activity and the consumption and processing of massive amounts of data (far more than a human with a photographic memory could process in a hundred million lifetimes) is a completely different process to that.

I also point out that I don't have a problem with LLMs as a concept, and I'm actually excited about what they can do, but that they are inherently different from humans and should be treated as such by the law.

My main point is that authors should have the ability to decree that they don't want their work used as training data for megacorporations to profit from without their consent.

So, yes in a way it is about money, but the money in question being the money OpenAI and Meta are making off the backs of millions of unpaid and often unsuspecting people.

One of the things they are alleging is that the books were acquired illegally

They’re “complaining” about unique qualities of their art being used, without consent, to create new things which ultimately de-value their original art.

It’s a debate to be had, I’m not clearly in favour of either argument here, but it’s quite obvious what they’re upset with.

Authors profiteering from arcane copyright laws

I get this argument from the film, movie, television, videogame industry, and other more modern ones out there. But outside a handful of actual big name authors the average writer isnt exactly raking it in.

Also thanks to being a relic of the past we do still have libraries which offer books for free to read with a subscription and not only is this common, but its a celebrated thing among most authors and the reading community.