> it's not so obvious if "AI" is a distinct class from human
It is. It obviously is. It's the same reason that a person watching a movie and remembering it later is different than recording the movie with a camcorder.
> Ah but I made a robot that walks into theaters, buys a ticket, records the movie, leaves, and then recreates the movie at my home an infinite number of times. I didn't break the law, since a human could surely do the same thing with enough practice and effort.
The policy isn’t written that way though. The policy doesn’t say anything about camcorders. So you’re right about camcorders. But the law says “copying” which is pretty abstract, the case law is really detailed, so it’s not so black and white. Nobody cares about your imaginary situations with robots - I basically agree with you that there needs to be a distinct law governing AI training, and that leads to a far more interesting and totally normative conversation about who, if anyone, is the good or the bad guys.
If the policy (via case law) becomes, expressly permissioned content only, there are no image generators. Some people may want that. But is that better than we were, in the current status quo, where we have them? I don’t think so.
It is. It obviously is. It's the same reason that a person watching a movie and remembering it later is different than recording the movie with a camcorder.
> Ah but I made a robot that walks into theaters, buys a ticket, records the movie, leaves, and then recreates the movie at my home an infinite number of times. I didn't break the law, since a human could surely do the same thing with enough practice and effort.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?