And I'm also not trying to bring people to any side, I'm not personally for or against AI learning on publicly available material, just providing a different perspective by veiling it in a slightly contrived example made with the position but "against" humans rather than AI.
It’s not human… Its not even GAI. It has no inherit rights, deserves no inherit rights.
Can we all please stop anthropomorphising a computer algorithm?
Nobody is concerned with AI learning from their content, they are concerned with how the AI will use their content, and there is no useful comparison between AI usage and human usage.
a) is fine, and maybe even motivated by, the fact that a fellow human will read or watch their work to learn, improve their craft, grow as a person, etc.
b) is offended by the fact that a faceless multi-billion company will appropriate their work to create a for-profit product that will make their shareholders a little bit richer?
I think it's related with the "substantive elaboration" test with regards to copyright (sorry I can't remember the proper term). If I just copy a scene from your movie, you can probably sue me. If I take some elements from it, but do my own thing so that it read more like a parody/comment / meta-comment, then it's ok.
Is AI just parroting back stuff or is it creating new things? A few years ago, I would have said it's just parroting. With the current models I think we are midway (it will depend on the propmt too!). In a couple of years my bet is that we'll be clearly on the "creating new thinfs territory".
It's cool that the algorithms are generic enough an can be specialised with training data, but it's a very very far cry from anything resembling basic awareness, much less the level of awareness mammals have.
(Also, general intelligence is not usually synonymous with self awareness in the literature. You might want to argue that, but it's, I think, a minority opinion)