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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent