AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale

Post by the_af » Thu, May 21, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

inanutshellus wrote: post #633

the_af wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a charitable reading of the comment, and furthermore, it's not even a reasonable assumption. Other comments clarify that the "theft" is in quotes because it's a figurative theft, not from Disney to themselves, but from Disney to the earlier, non-copyrighted folk tales it drew inspiration from. And the "theft" is that the Disney IP supplanted (via ubiquity) the public domain versions to the point lots of pe…

I don't think it's "uncharitable"? Seems perfectly reasonable to not like a remake. He says: > ... this corporate remake is a worse creative "theft" than ... Context is that "this" is the 1999 film. A sibling comment makes a separate point that even the 1992 film is not original content but nowhere in falcor84's comment does he refer to the franchise as a whole being "theft". Regardless, it's clear from the post that…

Post by Rekindle8090 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

danorama wrote: post #414

There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…

Post by Rekindle8090 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

LunicLynx wrote: post #572

Meph504 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different. The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior. Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is th…

Wasn’t his point about plagiarism? That is also not ok on a small scale.

Post by Meph504 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 9:43 PM UTC

mark336 wrote: post #654

Meph504 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like if I go to Golden Gate Park and pick one flower, I shouldn’t do that, but no one cares. But if I build a machine to automatically cut every flower in the park because I want to sell them, that’s different. The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior. Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is th…

>Learning from others at a small scale is not only socially acceptable, but is the foundation of how advancement works. This is true, shows how human thought differs from AI. AI needs massive datasets to be coherent.

Post by mark336 » Thu, May 21, 2026, 9:54 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #529

wang_li wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint with your argument is that the word learn means one thing when we are talking about a person learning something from a webpage or book and something completely different when a webpage or book is used to adjust some weights in a matrix. Calling that learning is a distraction from the real copyright violations going on.

>when we are talking about a person learning something from a webpage or book and something completely different when a webpage or book is used to adjust some weights in a matrix What material differences exist between the two besides "humans good, computers bad"? >Calling that learning is a distraction from the real copyright violations going on. Most courts so far have ruled that it counts as fair use.