Recent searches
Search options
Perpetual reminder that the entire business model of LLM-based chatbots, no matter their nationality, is based on intellectual property theft and this gem from XKCD:
So im gonna listen to a song and the neural network called my brain will learn from it, so when i write my own song, turns out its theft? This is crazy. We're so used to culture being restricted that we completely lost our minds.
"The Human-AI Scale is Not Comparable
First, humans and AI systems do not consume creative works in the same way. A human can read a novel, watch a television show or movie, or listen to a song, and while it might spark inspiration, they cannot instantly absorb every book, every screenplay, every melody ever created. "
The difference is still just scale. To think this is ethically questionable is a legitimate concern worthy of debate. But to call it theft would require a redefinition of property itself.
"When a human consumes creative works—whether reading a book, streaming a movie, or listening to music—there’s an economic exchange.
Libraries pay for books and recorded works. Schools and universities do the same.
Streaming platforms license music and films. Cinemas pay to exhibit. Theatres, arenas and stadiums pay for performances. Even ad-supported services like radio and television networks ensure creators receive royalties, however small."
"They’re not paying licensing fees to access the books, films, or music they train on. They’re not compensating creators for the value their works add to the AI’s capabilities. Instead, they’re mining the world's reserve of copyrighted material without acknowledging or paying for the creativity, craft, and sheer labour that went into creating it."
There’s another key distinction: humans are end users.
AI companies are platforms and enablers—just like Spotify, Netflix, or a publishing house. Those platforms don’t get a free pass to use copyrighted works because they facilitate creativity; they pay licensing fees to use, distribute, and profit from those works.
AI platforms should be no different."
"The idea that AI shouldn’t have to pay because “it’s like a human finding inspiration” conveniently ignores the fact that AI is not a person—it’s a product. And when a product derives its value from copyrighted works, the creators of those works deserve compensation. Artificial intelligence companies are creating tools designed to replace human labour and creativity in many cases, and they are monetising those tools."
You are making very good points and i agree that this could be disruptive with the existing business models surrounding culture. But calling it theft is an oversimplification.
I left this link earlier, these are not my words: