In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

  • AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the topic is more complex than that.

    Otherwise you could say you’d rather stop posting creative endeavours entirely than simply let it be stolen and regurgitated by every single artist who use internet for references and inspiration.

    There’s not only the argument “but companies do so for profit” because many artist do the same, maybe they are designers, illustrators or other and you’ll work will give them ideas for their commissions

    • Boinketh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s true that restricting what AI can train on inhibits societal progress, but it’s consistent with current copyright laws because an AI is not a human and can’t be treated as anything more than an algorithm. What we’re learning here is that AI is bringing to light a problem in intellectual property law that’s plagued us for a long time: intellectual property being overly protected is harmful to society as a whole. I wouldn’t be opposed to AI training on data on the internet if people got the same treatment: let people reuse each other’s melodies, don’t protect likenesses so strictly, and for the love of humanity, no more pharmaceutical patents!

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        let people reuse each other’s melodies

        I think this is an interesting example, because it’s already like this. Songs reusing other sampled songs are released all the time, and it’s all perfectly legal. Only making a copy is illegal. No one can sue you if you create a character that resembles mickey mouse, but you can’t use mickey mouse.

        And pharmaceutical patents serves the same scope, they encourage the company to release publicly papers, data and synthesis methods so that other people can learn and research can move faster.

        And the whole point of this is exactly regulating AI like people, no one will come after you because you’ve read something and now you have an opinion about it, no body will get angry if you’ve saw an Instagram post and now you have some ideas for your art.

        Of course the distinction between likeness and copy is not that defined, but that’s part of the whole debacle

      • realharo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And of course, the same principle must apply to the resulting AI models themselves.