> Whether AI can use copyrighted material as training data is legally undetermined. There's only an argument that it could be. It will be decided in court.

Note that this is U.S. specific.

https://store.lawnet.com/blog/post/understanding-the-text-an...

It seems to me that a lot of countries in the western sphere just follow US law, even if indirectly. So I think the US judgement on this will be decisive.

That's a funny post, since your other reply in this thread is:

>Ridiculous. The copyright violation is in its use for training data. And then its doubled down by the user asking for copyrighted material and getting it verbatim.

>It's not complicated. It's only complicated because it might be in the way of some people making billions or trillions.

I was debating someone, not asserting that I know the answer.

They were speculating whether there could be a copyright violations vs for instance using a tape recorder or a video camera.

I made an example that yes if there is a copyright violation here it is, and that’s it’s not that different.

I could have pillowed my language differently sure but what’s the point. It’s clear in context.