Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good. Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.
>Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks. You need a better example, a textbook was created with this exact purpose of sharing knowledge with the reader. My second point, if you write a poem and I read it and memorize it, then publish it as my own with some slight changes you would be upset? If I get your painting, then use a script to apply a small filt…
I feel the problem with analogizing to humans while trying to make a point against unlicensed machine learning is that applying the same moral/legal rules as we do to humans to generative models (learning is not infringement, output is only infringement if it's a substantially similar copy of a protected work, and infringement may still be covered by fair use) would be a very favorable outcome for machine learning.
> they just mix inputs and then interpolate an answer , is some cases you can't guess what input image/text was used
Even if you actually interpolated some set of inputs (which is not how diffusion models or transformers work), without substantial similarity to a protected work you're in the clear.
> is my script "creative"? [...] This AIs are not really creative [...]
There's no requirement for creativity - even traditional algorithms can make modifications such that the result lacks substantial similarity and thus is not copyright infringement, or is covered by fair use due to being transformative.