On: Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI

[asutekku]

Using analogies like "reading" to describe AI training is quite misleading imho. Training effectively embeds the book's contents into the model's weights. Changing the format doesn't change the content; a better analogy is distributing a book's text within software.

Current copyright laws are simply not prepared for this unprecedented use.

[qarl → asutekku]

> Training effectively embeds the book's contents into the model's weights. Changing the format doesn't change the content

Reading a book embeds its contents into your brain. And yet, that is considered fair use.

I agree, the analogies are meaningless in a legal context. In the legal context, the courts disagree with you.

[efreak → qarl]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the comparison is breaking down here. Reading a book is the specific intended purpose. It's why the book exists, not just fair use. If you couldn't remember what was going on in the book as you read it, it would be worthless.