GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

I think you would find it easier to help your friends if you approached the matter with reason rather than emotion. Your take on fair use isn’t is missing a lot, but that’s beside the point.

Assume you get what you wanted are asking for. What then?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, no, stop with the goddamn tone policing. I have zero interest in vagueposting and high-horse riding.

As for what I want, I want generative AI banned entirely, or at minimum restricted to training on works that are either in the public domain, or that the person creating the training model received explicit, opt-in consent to use. This is the supposed gold standard everyone demands when it comes to the widescale collection and processing of personal data that they generate just through their normal, everyday activities, why should it be different for the widescale collection and processing of the stuff we actually put our effort into creating?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

As for what I want, I want generative AI banned entirely,

Well, you can see the moral (and political!) problem here. Maybe the people who crunched numbers before electric computers wanted them banned. Maybe people who make diesel engines want EVs banned. That’s asking the public to take a hit for the benefit of a small group. Morality aside, it’s politically unlikely.

or at minimum restricted to training on works that are either in the public domain, or that the person creating the training model received explicit, opt-in consent to use.

This is somewhat more likely. But what then?

I’ll start. Opt-in means that you have to obtain a license to AI train with something. You have to pay the owner of the intellectual property. What does this mean in our economy? What happens?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

ideally? It means that AI companies have to throw away their entire training model, pay for a license that they may not be able to afford, and go out of business as a result, at which point everyone snaps out of the cult of AI and realizes it’s as overhyped as block chain and pretends it never happened. Pardon me while I find a flea to play the world’s tiniest violin. More realistically, open models will be restricted to FOSS works and the public domain, while commercial models pay for licenses from copyright holders.

Like, what, you think I haven’t thought through this exact issue before and reached the exact conclusion your leading questions are so transparently pushing that open models will be restricted to public works only while commercial models can obtain a license? Yeah, duh. And you know what? I. Don’t. Care. Commercial models can be (somewhat) more easily regulated, and even in the absolute worst case, at least creators will have a mechanism to opt out of the artist crushing machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 543K

    Comments