commie

intent does matter for fair use claims, and knowledge matters for bare infringement.

no.

what do you think argument ad absurdum is?

are you saying that selling a book that has the same characters as a recently released book doing the same things but with wording differences is somehow fair use? Like a book called Harry Potter and the Something Rock with the exact same plot points but worded slightly different is fair use?

no. I was saying selling an AI model or access to it that is capable of producing that work is not, itself, copyright infringement.

in fact, do you know what a clean room is? if I provided to a writing team every English language work except those written by JK Rowling and it produced a work exactly like you're describing, The resultant work would not be infringing copyright. it should not be any different for AI where you cannot prove what materials it was provided.

it's not what I said. I'm not relying on Wikipedia: I'm relying on my degree.

You’ve already done a fine job of explaining exactly what’s wrong with your position

I've only stated my position. I haven't actually provided any justification one way or the other. your suggestion that I have sounds like gas lighting.

You think you’re entitled to the fruits of others’ labor.

this isn't what I said. it's a straw man.

an appeal to ridicule is also called a horse laugh fallacy. it's like writing lol instead of actually explaining what's wrong with the position to which your objecting. this response also reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you can't explain what's wrong with my position, maybe you shouldn't be speaking about my position.

this reads like an appeal to ridicule. if you have an objection to what I said please state it.

if anybody gets a copy of it, they have no ethical obligation not to share it, and every ethical justification for sharing it.