>Human learning doesn't involve fixing anything,... AI training does involve fixing something into a fixed medium, which makes it disanalogous to human learning.
No, it breaks one part of the analogy, which has never been considered relevant: how long the learning persists. Yes, computers can store weights of a AI model much longer than any human could. But storing this "impact of having viewed a copyrighted work" has never been a factor in considering something infringing, regardless of how long it's stored. Courts don't consider it infringement if you simply use what you have learned from reading previous novels (the updates to your brain's neural weights) in producing new content.
Your argument is saying that the "fixedness of storing model weights" (aggregated high level understanding) can cause it to be infringement. That's without precedent. It would imply that if you're really good at "fixing" (remembering) the style of an author you read 50 years ago, it somehow crosses over into infringement because you "fixed that understanding into a medium" (your brain). That's not how it works at all.
>Among the reasons that Google removed outside access to its cached copies
I wasn't referring to the cached part of a site that Google serves to users, but the undistributed cache that they hold merely to know which sites to point you to, so you're not addressing the analogy. Here Google does store an exact copy (of at least some portions) and even then it's not considered copyright infringement until they start redistributing that content (or at least, too much of it).
My point was that acceptance of this practice even further bolsters the case that AI models aren't infringing, because, even if they did store exact copies, that generally not considered infringement until they start serving close-enough copies of the original copyrighted content.
No, it breaks one part of the analogy, which has never been considered relevant: how long the learning persists. Yes, computers can store weights of a AI model much longer than any human could. But storing this "impact of having viewed a copyrighted work" has never been a factor in considering something infringing, regardless of how long it's stored. Courts don't consider it infringement if you simply use what you have learned from reading previous novels (the updates to your brain's neural weights) in producing new content.
Your argument is saying that the "fixedness of storing model weights" (aggregated high level understanding) can cause it to be infringement. That's without precedent. It would imply that if you're really good at "fixing" (remembering) the style of an author you read 50 years ago, it somehow crosses over into infringement because you "fixed that understanding into a medium" (your brain). That's not how it works at all.
>Among the reasons that Google removed outside access to its cached copies
I wasn't referring to the cached part of a site that Google serves to users, but the undistributed cache that they hold merely to know which sites to point you to, so you're not addressing the analogy. Here Google does store an exact copy (of at least some portions) and even then it's not considered copyright infringement until they start redistributing that content (or at least, too much of it).
My point was that acceptance of this practice even further bolsters the case that AI models aren't infringing, because, even if they did store exact copies, that generally not considered infringement until they start serving close-enough copies of the original copyrighted content.