When I read your comment I trained my own mental model on your words. How is that any different? When a human reads words they apply a sophisticated theory of mind to contextualize the writing and the mental state of the author. If anything, LLM fine tuning is far less invasive than having a person read your writing.
The idea that reading a piece of text constitutes copyright infringement is ridiculous. Copyright isn’t some infectious thing. Reading copyrighted text doesn’t give the copyright holder a claim to the future creative work of the reader.
You want to restrict model training, I get it. The debate is still ongoing, but I’m confident when these “copyright” claims work their way through court the AI companies will come out on top.
> The idea that reading a piece of text constitutes copyright infringement is ridiculous.
No man, it's not ridiculous. If I write a program that copies someone's book and try to sell it I'm infringing on that copyright. I cannot sell a zipped version of the Harry Potter books. I feel like there's so many people weighing in on this discussion who haven't actually done any real world copyright related stuff.
You're going to have to let a lot of scientists know that, because they're still publishing papers with that understanding. I guess they should have consulted you first.
