GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

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

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    So… This may be an unpopular question. Almost every time AI is discussed, a staggering number of posts support very right-wing positions. EG on topics like this one: Unearned money for capital owners. It’s all Ayn Rand and not Karl Marx. Posters seem to be unaware of that, though.

    Is that the “neoliberal Zeitgeist” or what you may call it?

    I’m worried about what this may mean for the future.

    ETA: 7 downvotes after 1 hour with 0 explanation. About what I expected.

    • fhqwgads@possumpat.ioEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      I think it’s a conflation of the ideas of what copyright should be and actually is. I don’t tend to see many people who believe copyright should be abolished in its entirety, and if people write a book or a song they should have some kind of control over that work. But there’s a lot of contention over the fact that copyright as it exists now is a bit of a farce, constantly traded and sold and lasting an aeon after the person who created the original work dies.

      It seems fairly morally constant to think that something old and part of the zeitgeist should not be under copyright, but that the system needs an overhaul when companies are using your live journal to make a robot call center.

      • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Lemmy seems left-wing on economics in other threads. But on AI, it’s private property all the way, without regard for the consequences on society. The view on intellectual property is that of Ayn Rand. Economically, it does not get further to the right than that.

        My interpretation is that people go by gut feeling and never think of the consequences. The question is, why does their gut give them a far-right answer? One answer is that somehow our culture, at present, fosters such reactions; that it is the zeitgeist. If that’s the truth (and this reflects a wider trend) then inequality will continue to increase as a result of voter’s demands.

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I think that this is showing a lot of people only really care about espousing anti-privatization ideas as long as it suits their personal interests and as long as they feel they have more to gain than to lose. People are selfish, and a lot of progressive, or really any kind of passionate rhetoric is often conveniently self-serving and emotionally driven, rather than truly principled.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

            You’re not wrong but how many people here are actually pursuing their own personal interest. Most people here are probably wage-earners. Yet so many people support giving more money to property owners without any kind of requirement or incentive for work. Just a rent for property owners. It feels like this should be met with knee-jerk rejection.