Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
See, I'm troubled by that one because it sounds good on paper, but in practice that means that Google and Meta, who can certainly build licenses into their EULAs trivially, would become the only government-sanctioned entities who can train AI. Established corpos were actively lobbying for similar measures early on.
And of course good luck getting China to give a crap, which in that scenario would be a better outcome, maybe.
Like you, I think copyright is broken past all functionality at this point. I would very much welcome an entire reconceptualization of it to support not just specific AI regulation but regulation of big data, fair use and user generated content. We need a completely different framework at this point.
As long as people are paying other people, these things will equalize eventually. Ultimately, it would be much more likely that the cost of AI production would become so severe that it would no longer be viable as a business (which, frankly, is fine. There will eventually be enough public domain content that AI will be at the quality it is today with public materials alone.)
You seem to have a lot more trust in the invisible hand of the market and the inability of corporations to change copyright regulations to their liking than I do.
I have seen no evidence that "as long as people are paying other people" the money goes anywhere but towards billionaires. And... well, the absolute dismantling of public domain has been a running gag for ages.
And again, the corpos would not need to pay anybody anyway. Google already has a perfectly legal license to train AI on all of Youtube, Meta on all of Instagram and Facebook. You are telling me it'll all even out in 100 years when the Internet goes into the public domain. That doesn't sound like it'll work the way you're saying it'll work.
So, AI will always be ~95 years behind the times?
Except the AIs produced by Disney et al, of course. And those produced by Chinese companies with the CCP stamp of approval. They'll be up to date.