[greenhexagon]

Do you think students should need a specific license to read a book? Do visitors to an art gallery need a specific license to look at paintings? Do audiences need specific licenses to watch a play?

Those people will be influenced by what they've read/seen/heard and their own future writing/drawing/filming/acting/editing/playing might draw inspiration from what they've learned, and they might incorporate things they've learned into their own future work.

Literally every book, song and work of art is "violating copyright" on the thousands of other works that the creator learned from while growing up, if we hold the same standard.

[naet]

This is a common argument currently, but I think training a LLM is clearly not the same as a student learning. There might be some superficial similarities but they are fundamentally different on many levels (speed, scale, perfect recall, public access, etc). They are held to different standards because they aren't the same thing.

You can listen to a song on the radio or on an internet stream but not have the rights to record and redistribute it (but you do have the right to listen to it at home with multiple people, etc).

An LLM training is closer to "recording and redistributing" than it is to "taking inspiration" or "human learning" in my opinion.