Readit NewsOr, to be more upfront: I simply don't think blaming individual people (and deciding whether they "deserve" whatever) is very fair or productive.
People who are willing to forsake some degree of convenience can be granted greater privacy by simply informing them.
People who are seeking convenience will always be giving up something else. In this domain, they're often giving up privacy.
A lot of people these days are essentially forced to seek convenience. They don't have the time or money to spare to do otherwise.
I could use Photoshop to reproduce a copyrighted work, and in some circumstances (i.e. personal use) that'd be fine. Or I could use Photoshop to reproduce a copyrighted work and try to sell it for profit, which would clearly not be fine. Nobody is saying that Adobe has to recognize whether or not the pixels I'm editing constitute a copyrighted work or not.
If I paid a human to recite the whole front page of the New York Times to me, they could probably do it. There's nothing infringing about that. However, if I videotape them reciting the front page of the New York Times and start selling that video, then I'd be infringing on the copyright.
The guy that I paid to tell me about what NYT was saying didn't do anything wrong. Whether there's any copyright infringement would depend what I did with the output.
Suppose I research for a book that I'm writing - it doesn't matter whether I type it on a Mac, PC, or typewriter. It doesn't matter if I use the internet or the library. It doesn't matter if I use an AI powered voice-to-text keyboard or an AI assistant.
If I release a book that has a chapter which was blatantly copied from another book, I might be sued under copyright law. That doesn't mean that we should lock me out of the library, or prevent my tools from working there.
Couldn't disagree more strongly, and I hope the outcome is the exact opposite. I think we've already started to see the severe negative consequences when the lion's share of the profits get sucked up by very, very few entities (e.g. we used to have tons of local papers and other entities that made money through advertising, now Google and Facebook, and to a smaller extent Amazon, suck up the majority of that revenue). The idea that everyone else gets to toil to make the content but all the profits flow to the companies with the best AI tech is not a future that's going to end with the utopia vision AI boosters think it will.
All it would do is momentarily slow AI progress (which is fine), and allow OpenAI et al to pull the ladder up behind them (which fuels centralization of power and profit).
By what mechanism do you think your desired outcome would prevent centralization of profit to the players who are already the largest?
Long term, if no one is given credit for their research, either the creators will start to wall off their content or not create at all. Both options would be sad.
A humane attribution comment from the AI could go a long way - "I think I read something about this <topic X> in the NYTimes <link> on January 3rd, 2021."
It appears that without attribution, long term, nothing moves forward.
AI loses access to the latest findings from humanity. And so does the public.
Yes, we all agree that it's better if they do remember and mention their sources, but we don't sue them for failing to do so.
It's clearly not enough to cover all of the expenses that are required to generate your "revenue", but it's a gesture in that direction.