>>717254568
Ai isn't "reading" anything lile a human would you retard. AI is literally SAVING/COPYING it.
There are a lot of mouthbreathers out there that also mix up "training AI" as how a human would "train" or "learn" his draftsmanship for example, by referencing pictures of old masters - which is nothing alike. AI isn't referencing, its straight up 1:1 copying and saving it for future use.
> if i buy access to 10 pictures of pablo picasso, then show you these 10 pictures and ask you to paint me a picture in the style of these 10 pictures, have i stolen pablo picassos work?
First you have to buy access or get your hands on the rights, which neither zuck did or any other AI company. They even admitted that openly. Especially digital art for example is completly getting sucked dry from scraping bots. Artists get their whole portfolios stolen or get never even asked if they are okay with giving up their artworks to train an AI with it. Because the answer would be obviously NO. Nobody wants to give up their unique style they honed for decades without end to attain mastery in their craft just to get picture mash upped by some fucking AI. But who knows, some maybe even would do it - if there would be a fair way of compensation that is - which like i said already, is non existent.
Your second assumption is also wrong. You can't pay a sub in a digital library and have a free card to download everything and anything and flood your AI with it. Why not? One is private use, which is often in the grey zone and okay because it falls often under fair use. AI doesn't because its used commercially. You make money on the back if the authors knowledge with the book.