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
2 points

Your feelings don’t really matter, the fact of the matter is that the goal of ai is literally to replicate the function of a human brain. The way we’re building them is often mimicking the same processes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

the fact of the matter is that the goal of AI is literally to replicate the function of a human brain

…says who? That’s absolutely your feeling and not facts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The goal of AI is fictional, and there’s no solid evidence today that it will ever stop being fiction.

What at have today are stupid learning algorithms that are surprisingly good at mimicing intelligent people.

The most apt comparison today is a particularly clever parrot.

I’m all for having the discussion about how to handle AI when we have it, but it’s bad faith to apply it to what we have today.

Critically, what we have today will never ever go on strike, or really make any kind of correct moral decision on it’s own. We must treat it like dumb automation, because it is dumb automation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

And LLMs and related technologies, by themselves, are artificial but not intelligent. So, the facts are not in favor of your argument to allow commercial parasitism on creative works.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think you’re missing a point here. If someone uses these to models to produce and distribute copyright infringing works, the original rights holder could go after the infringer.

The model itself isn’t infringing though, and the process of creating the model isn’t either.

It’s a similar kind of argument to the laws that protect gun manufacturers from culpability from someone using their weapon to commit a crime. The user is the one doing the bad thing, they just produce a tool.

Otherwise, could Disney go after a pencil company because someone used one of their pencils to infringe on their copyright. Even if that pencil company had designed the pencil to be extremely good at producing Disney imagery by looking at a whole bunch of Disney images and movies to make sure it matches the size, colour, etc? No, because a pencil isn’t a copyright infringement of art, regardless of the process used to design it.

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

Nah. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Let’s get abstract:

Person A makes a living by making product X and selling it.

Person B makes a living by making product Y and selling it.

Both A and B are in the same industry.

Person C uses a machine to extract the essence of product X and Y and blend them. Person C then claims authorship and sells it as product Z, which they sell in competition to X and Y.

Person C has not created anything. Their machine does not have value in the absence of products X and Y, yet received no permission, offers no credit nor compensation. In addition, they are competing for the same customers and harming the livelihoods of A and B. Person C is acting in a purely parasitic manner that cannot be seen as ethical in any widely accepted definition of the word.

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