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

  • JackGreenEarth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    65 months ago

    I see way too many people advocating for copyright. I understand in this case it benefits big companies rather than consumers, but if you disagree with copyright, as I do, you should be consistent.

    • Optional
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 months ago

      Copyright law should benefit humans, not machines, not corporations. And no, corporations are not people. Anthony Kennedy can get bent.

    • @General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      You don’t have to be against copyright, as such. Fair Use is part of copyright law. It exists to prevent copyrights from being abused against the interests of the general public.

      • JackGreenEarth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        But I am against any copyright beyond forcing attribution to the original creator.

          • @Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 months ago

            Here’s your works cited for any generative AI:

            Humanity. “The Entire Publicly Accessible Internet .” The World Wide Web, , 1 Jan. 1983, WWW.org.

          • JackGreenEarth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 months ago

            AI creators, at least the open source ones, are usually pretty open about where they got the training data for their model

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            05 months ago

            At the very least, every AI should be able to spit out a comprehensive list of all the material it used for training. And it should be capable of removing any specific item and regenerating its algorithm.

            This is a fundamental requirement of the technology itself to function. What happens if one the training materials has a retraction? Or if the authors admit they used AI to generate it? You need to purge that knowledge to keep the AI healthy and accurate.