I think it is generally accepted that AI should not reproduce works that others have the right to. I think most people developing AI consider it a mode of failure when it does reproduce a copy of its training data.
It remains an open question on who's responsibility it is to not distribute infringing AI works. The developer or the the user of the AI. Legally it is unclear due to a lack of cases providing precedent in such a new situation. Morally I think AI developers do consider it a duty to reduce such behaviour to a minimum, but also believe that the benefits of the AI are significant enough that it would be unreasonable to block access to them because of the existence of failure modes.
When it comes to being "slopped up" which is a weird phrasing in itself, but I gather you are trying to repurpose the term "slop" to add additional pejorative tone to you words. I'm not really a fan of 'slop' as a term for AI output because it is used specifically as a term for AI output. Should it be used as a blanket term for low effort, mass generated content it would be reasonable, but when it seems to apply specifically to AI it carries the implication of prejudice. Choosing to move it to a verb describing input removes all of the meaningful aspect of the term leaving only the prejudice. Just go with "slurped up"
That brings us to what training actually is, Reading. There is no requirement for attribution to read something. There is no requirement for attribution to learn from something. The restrictions on reproduction are there in recognition of your work representing the ideas. The ideas themselves are not copyrightable, This is widely recognised legally and morally. Scholars have written volumes on why this should be the case and how bad it would be if the alternative, a world where people could own ideas themselves, were true. Imagine the wealth imbalance that exist in today's world, now extend that imbalance from money to the very ideas that you use to express yourself.
AI should not reproduce your work by terms you have not agreed to. You have a valid complaint when it does that. My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from. That is not true, right, or moral.
It remains an open question on who's responsibility it is to not distribute infringing AI works. The developer or the the user of the AI. Legally it is unclear due to a lack of cases providing precedent in such a new situation. Morally I think AI developers do consider it a duty to reduce such behaviour to a minimum, but also believe that the benefits of the AI are significant enough that it would be unreasonable to block access to them because of the existence of failure modes.
When it comes to being "slopped up" which is a weird phrasing in itself, but I gather you are trying to repurpose the term "slop" to add additional pejorative tone to you words. I'm not really a fan of 'slop' as a term for AI output because it is used specifically as a term for AI output. Should it be used as a blanket term for low effort, mass generated content it would be reasonable, but when it seems to apply specifically to AI it carries the implication of prejudice. Choosing to move it to a verb describing input removes all of the meaningful aspect of the term leaving only the prejudice. Just go with "slurped up"
That brings us to what training actually is, Reading. There is no requirement for attribution to read something. There is no requirement for attribution to learn from something. The restrictions on reproduction are there in recognition of your work representing the ideas. The ideas themselves are not copyrightable, This is widely recognised legally and morally. Scholars have written volumes on why this should be the case and how bad it would be if the alternative, a world where people could own ideas themselves, were true. Imagine the wealth imbalance that exist in today's world, now extend that imbalance from money to the very ideas that you use to express yourself.
AI should not reproduce your work by terms you have not agreed to. You have a valid complaint when it does that. My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from. That is not true, right, or moral.