Benno 
if AI companies get access to all copyrighted works for free because "it isn't possible to train an AI without it", should we not give free access to all copyrighted works to children because it is not possible to train one without it?
Chris H #ChoirsForClimate@benno I see your point. There's also a fundamental difference - a child can be taught to not make an exact copy of someone else's work for profit, and is capable of realising that's a bad idea even if they don't get sued over it (and adults can be sued for violating copyright for profit). An AI can't learn that violating copyright is bad, and if it does violate copyright, there's no current remedy.
Barry Stahl-AZGiveCamp Founder@hutchingsmusic I see your point in response to @benno, but I believe what you're saying is simply not true. How many times have we all created something (idea, image, etc) that we thought was original, only to find out it wasn't and that we likely were influenced either by the original, or a derivative of it?
@hutchingsmusic @benno sure, once discovered. Either way it requires external intervention. System that use AIs can actually run their output through copyright checkers far more easily than people. So both can do the same, AI is just better at it, if programmed to do so, as some humans are. The more I think it through, the more I think you actually demonstrated the opposite of what you intended.
@Bsstahl @benno There's pretty clear evidence out there that AI output is not being run through any sort of copyright checker. If it was feasible, they'd be doing it by now surely - given how many papers are out there saying "AI is violating copyright, here are 5000 examples". All they've done in response is cut down on the prompts that can be used. The output is still, frequently, clear copyright violation.
@hutchingsmusic @benno Systems using AI often do, but that is immaterial here. People could also be trained to use copyright checkers and often don't. Which means, benno's point stands. If AIs get access for free, so do kids. The distinction you tried to make is invalid.
@hutchingsmusic @benno Apologies if I misunderstood and we've been talking past each other. I'm not sure I understand the point you were making but you did say "also", so it sounds like we agree on the important thing.