> Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose.
They transformed the weights.
Just like reading the article transforms yours.
As for verbatim reproduction, I'm pretty sure brains are capable of reproducing song lyrics, musical melodies, common symbols ("cool S"), and lots of other things verbatim too.
Those quotes from Dr. King's speech that you remember are copyrighted, you know?
This comment is just blatant anthropomorphizing of ML models. You have no idea if reading an article “transforms weights” in a human mind, and regardless, they aren’t legally the same thing anyway.
Why? A human being isn’t infinitely scalable; they’re just different. It’s the same thing as going to a movie theatre to watch a movie vs. recording it with a camera.
A human churning butter, spinning cotton, or acting as a bank teller isn't infinitely scalable either. This is orthogonal to the point.
Times change. We're industrializing information creation and consumption (the latter is mostly here already), and we can't be stuck in the old copyright regime. It'll be useless in very short order.
All this road bump will do will give the giant megacorps time to ink deals, solidify their lead, and trounce open source. Twenty years on, the pace of content creation will be as rapid as thought itself and we'll kick ourselves for cementing their lead.
This is a transitional period between two wildly different worlds.
They transformed the weights.
Just like reading the article transforms yours.
As for verbatim reproduction, I'm pretty sure brains are capable of reproducing song lyrics, musical melodies, common symbols ("cool S"), and lots of other things verbatim too.
Those quotes from Dr. King's speech that you remember are copyrighted, you know?