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
    62·
    10 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@lemm.eeEnglish
      42·
      10 months ago

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

        • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
          31·
          10 months ago

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

        • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.netEnglish
          31·
          10 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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          10 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.