Training AI feels inherently commercial with intent to commercially distribute, which seems to be licensed specially in most domains.
In a sense it's like driving down the highway with a duffel bag of cannabis flower in a state where possessing and traveling with few ounces is no problem--something commercial is probably happening. Why is that prohibited? Perhaps another debate, but just trying to connect the implied intent aspect.
If an AI were being trained for strictly academic reasons then I'd agree with fair use and that type of arguments. But if the AI itself has a subscription fee, then whoever is subscribing is also probably using the work for real or anticipated commercial gain. Hence investing money.
True that hobbyists spend money with no intention to gain commercially, and we may do that at a higher than average rate as tech workers because we have usually have a decent amount of excess money from our work. But money is pretty scarce to most people and businesses with set non-investment budgets, so if they're spending it on AI there's little doubt it's with commercial intent.
So in conclusion, I do think there's both merit to the authors' case related to intent to commercialize and room for doing unlicensed non-commercial AI training.
In a sense it's like driving down the highway with a duffel bag of cannabis flower in a state where possessing and traveling with few ounces is no problem--something commercial is probably happening. Why is that prohibited? Perhaps another debate, but just trying to connect the implied intent aspect.
If an AI were being trained for strictly academic reasons then I'd agree with fair use and that type of arguments. But if the AI itself has a subscription fee, then whoever is subscribing is also probably using the work for real or anticipated commercial gain. Hence investing money.
True that hobbyists spend money with no intention to gain commercially, and we may do that at a higher than average rate as tech workers because we have usually have a decent amount of excess money from our work. But money is pretty scarce to most people and businesses with set non-investment budgets, so if they're spending it on AI there's little doubt it's with commercial intent.
So in conclusion, I do think there's both merit to the authors' case related to intent to commercialize and room for doing unlicensed non-commercial AI training.