presumably, it should be illegal to record a movie with with an inbuilt camera. capturing the data in such a way that an identical copy can be automatically be reproduced brakes the social contract around the way those works are shared. the majority of media is produced by large companies that are ultimately not harmed by such activities, but individual artisans that create things shouldn't be subjected to this.
we can take this a step further: if your augmented eyes and ears can record people in a conversation, should you be allowed to produce lifelike replicas of people's appearance and voice? a person can definitely imagine someone saying/doing anything. a talented person with enough effort could even make a 3D model and do a voice impression on their own. it should be obvious that having a conversation with a stranger doesn't give them permission to clone your every detail, and shouldn't that also be true for your creations?
Only because I'm significantly more intelligent than ChatGPT, so I can achieve its level of competency on a lot of things with a thousand videos instead of a million videos.
If it just reduces to an issue of data efficiency, AI research will eventually get there though.
When a company trains an AI model on something, and then that company sells access to the ai model, the company, not the ai model, is the being violating copyright. If Jimmy makes an android in his garage and gives it free will, then it trains itself on youtube, i doubt anyone would have an issue.
In what possible way is that true? Not that I like it, but google has its creators sign away the rights to their material for uses like this. Nobody signs a contract with openai when they make their youtube videos.
In theory that should matter to something like Open(Closed)Ai. But who knows.