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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
17 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Look at this.

It’s just a single example, there are endless songs which are samples of samples of samples… Once in a while YouTube content id will have some problems as it’s not perfect. It doesn’t mean the system is fundamentally flawed. Like saying every car on the planet is cursed because once you got a flat tyre.

Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

Pay attention because the alternative to patents is not a “free for all” approach , it’s industrial secrecy. As research is still very much expensive for entities to carry out.

Set aside than, no, extra research benefits everyone in the society as new cures for diseases are discovered faster and medicine evolve organically. Patents were the compromise to ensure companies could monetize their research while sharing their knowledge, are there other possible equilibrium? Sure, but we still have to remember we live in the real world, you can’t have a cake and eat it

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Pharmaceutical patents are insanely harmful to the average consumer, at least in the US.

That’s more of a US problem than it is a pharmaceutical patents problem.

Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

Only they are able to benefit from that research at first. Which is how it’s always been, new things are rare and expensive at first and become cheaper and more common over time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 78K

    Comments