At a Senate hearing on AI’s impact on journalism, lawmakers backed media industry calls to make OpenAI and other tech companies pay to license news articles and other data used to train algorithms.

  • DrMcRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    That’s a pretty dumb comparison. Are you suggesting that people who create stuff used to train AI are obligated to provide that education for free? People who create books/educational aids for teachers to use in classrooms still demand to be paid for that. Teachers are paid for delivering that education. The kids don’t pay the teachers, as a society we tax people because education benefits us all, but the teachers are still paid (not enough!)

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think he’s suggesting that it’s pretty dystopian to let creators decide that their content is free to view but only if you’re a human willing to let companies spy on you while watching it.

      It’s either free or it’s not.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Not a great comparison. AI training is not problematic because of consumption, it’s a problem because it is then used to circumvent copyright law.

        If you do want to argue with technicalities, you also have to contend with the fact that a large part of the concerned usage is not really free. Much of this online data is funded by advertisement. Scraping it constitutes circumvention.

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are no contracts signed agreeing to that exchange by either me nor the scrapers. Legally, it’s free.

    • Shurimal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Human brain (any brain, really) is a natural neural network which is trained throughout its life the same way an artificial neural network is. Nothing is original, every creator is “stealing” from every other creator who’s work they have studied to become better creators. No creator ever in history has created anything in pure, absolute vaccuum. Every creation is a remix and amalgamation of previously created works.

      And intellectual property is a spook , anyway. No-one can own an idea.

      • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I hate the term intellectual property. It’s a word used to describe vastly different concepts with vastly different legal backgrounds and problems.

        Copyright is theoretically a good thing, giving an artist or writer the time to profit from their work before the work becomes public domain, incentivizing the work. The current international agreements around it are absolutely bonkers thanks to Disney. The fact that the copyright persists after death, let alone for a century, is complete madness. The artist obviously can’t profit from their work after they’re dead. It’s an absolute shameless cash grab that destroys culture.

        Patents are also theoretically a good thing, allowing companies to release specifications of machines that allow for 10 years of exclusive use. Without patents, companies would hide their designs as trade secrets. It guarantees that after a decade, the designs will be publicly available for anyone to see. They need to be much more heavily restricted in what you can put patents on though. Patenting a specific machine design is fine, patenting molecules or math breaks the entire system. Software patents are blatantly absurd and broken.

        EDIT: Should also mention that 3D printers are a patent success story of the system working as intended. Patented in 1986, the inventor made good money making expensive machines with his own company. In 1996, the patent expired and we had an explosion of competing machines, getting ever cheaper and more effective. Everybody won. The inventor made bank for his decade of exclusivity, and then everyone benefited from the design being public domain, free for everyone to use.

        Trade secrets, the protection of specific recipes, client lists and strategies, can be abused to protect companies against disclosing information that may be very pertinent to their customers and governments. The Coca-Cola recipe or lists of clients as a trade secret is fine imho, but they can also abuse trade secret law to hide systems that lie about your car’s emissions.

        Trademarks help protect consumers against knockoff brands that pretend to be what they’re not. This is the least abused type of “IP”. This doesn’t mean there aren’t bad actors out there registering tons of different trademarks to squat on those designs & names, hoping to force a new company to pay up to use the name. Trademark squatting could theoretically be solved by annulling the trademark if the company isn’t actively using it. Trademarks are currently much too easy to maintain.

        All of this to say, lumping all of these different laws into “IP” is not useful at all when talking about the goals of the different legislations, what they’re trying to do, and how they fail.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Human brain (any brain, really) is a natural neural network

        But the big difference between us and the AI is that we have motivation and drive. We don’t exist for a split second for the sole purpose of fulfilling a prompt. We can take what we’ve learned and create new things with it. The AI just spits out what it already knows. Not what is possible to do with what it knows. It cannot invent.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Property is a spook generally.

        But I can’t blame journalist’s for wanting to eat.

        Which is what this is really about. Food and paying the bills. Not intellectual property.

      • txmyx@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The human brain isn’t a product that is being sold. Also in most cases, education is not free (school, university, …)

        • Shurimal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Education is free in most of the world. And people sell their brains all the time. It’s called “a job”.