> That brings us to what training actually is, Reading. There is no requirement for attribution to read something.
> My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from.
Some would claim that training actually is not reading / learning but embedding / encoding. This take creates arguments like the following;
If I were to take his work and gzip it; does that mean I should be able to use it?
Why? Because this is an automated system. You are anthropomorphizing it unwarrantedly.
Not to mention usual copyright arguments like "If I memorize his code and write it on my computer by hand; can I do it now? What if I only remember 90%? 80%? What if I just change variable names?"
This isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be, in my humble opinion.
> My concern is that people appear to be extending their claims to suggest that they control the right to be learned from.
Some would claim that training actually is not reading / learning but embedding / encoding. This take creates arguments like the following;
If I were to take his work and gzip it; does that mean I should be able to use it?
Why? Because this is an automated system. You are anthropomorphizing it unwarrantedly.
Not to mention usual copyright arguments like "If I memorize his code and write it on my computer by hand; can I do it now? What if I only remember 90%? 80%? What if I just change variable names?"
This isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be, in my humble opinion.