Right. The problem is not the fact it consumes the information, the problem is if the user uses it to violate copyright. It’s just a tool after all.

Like, I’m capable of violating copyright in infinitely many ways, but I usually don’t.

If an LLM consumes the same copyrighted content and learns how to copy its various characteristics, how is it meaningfully different from me doing it and becoming a successful writer?

That is the trillion-dollar question, isn’t it?

I’ve got two thoughts to frame the question, but I won’t give an answer.

1. Laws are just social constructs, to help people get along with each other. They’re not supposed to be grand universal moral frameworks, or coherent/consistent philosophies. They’re always full of contradictions. So… does it even matter if it’s “meaningfully” different or not, if it’s socially useful to treat it as different (or not)?
2. We’ve seen with digital locks, gig work, algorithmic market manipulation, and playing either side of Section 230 when convenient… that the ethos of big tech is pretty much “define what’s illegal, so I can colonize the precise border of illegality, to a fractal level of granularity”. I’m not super stoked to come with an objective quantitative framework for them to follow, cuz I know they’ll just flow around it like water and continue to find ways to do antisocial shit in ways that technically follow the rules.

Yup. Violating IP licenses is a great reason to prevent it. According to current law, if they get Alice license for the book they should be able to use it how they want.
I'm not permitted to pirate a book just because I only intend to read it and then give it back. AI shouldn't be able to either if people can't.

Beyond that, we need to accept that might need to come up with new rules for new technology. There's a lot of people, notably artists, who object to art they put on their website being used for training. Under current law if you make it publicly available, people can download it and use it on their computer as long as they don't distribute it. That current law allows something we don't want doesn't mean we need to find a way to interpret current law as not allowing it, it just means we need new laws that say "fair use for people is not the same as fair use for AI training".

and learns how to copy its various characteristics

Because you are a human. Not an immortal corporation.

I am tired of people trying to have iNtElLeCtUaL dIsCuSsIoN about/with entities that would feed you feet first into a wood chipper if it thought it could profit from it.

Except the reason Altman is so upset has nothing to do with this very valid discussion.

As I commented elsewhere:

Fuck Sam Altmann, the fartsniffer who convinced himself & a few other dumb people that his company really has the leverage to make such demands.

He doesn't care about democracy, he's just scared because a chinese company offers what his company offers, but for a fraction of the price/resources.

He's scared for his government money and basically begging for one more handout “to save democracy”.

Yes, I’ve been listening to Ed Zitron.

In your example, you could also be sued for ripping off his style.

Has been since 1991