Technology

38752 readers

198 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

199

Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would ‘kill’ the AI industry (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 days ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As policy makers in the UK weigh how to regulate the AI industry, Nick Clegg, former UK deputy prime minister and former Meta executive, claimed a push for artist consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.

Speaking at an event promoting his new book, Clegg said the creative community should have the right to opt out of having their work used to train AI models. But he claimed it wasn’t feasible to ask for consent before ingesting their work first.

“I think the creative community wants to go a step further,” Clegg said according to The Times. “Quite a lot of voices say, ‘You can only train on my content, [if you] first ask’. And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.”

“I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first. I just don’t see how that would work,” Clegg said. “And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 109 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Well then maybe the AI industry deserves to die.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 27 points 3 days ago

This is true almost every time someone says "but without ", these businesses couldn't survive! Same deal with all the spyware that's part of our daily lives now. If it's not possible for you to make a smart TV without spying on me, then cool, don't make smart TVs.

If your business model crumbles under the weight of ethics, then fuck your business model and fuck you.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

There's a big difference in generative image AI, and then AI for lets say the medical industry, Deepmind etc.

And yes, you can ban the first without the other.

Going for AI as a whole makes no sense, and this politician also makes it seem like it's the same.

Saying AI is the same as just saying internet, when you want to ban a specific site.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 4 points 2 days ago

There is a very interesting dynamic occurring, where things that didn’t used to be called AI have been rebranded as such, largely so companies can claim they’re “using AI” to make shareholders happy.

I think it behooves all of us to stop referring to things blankety as AI and specify specific technologies and companies as the problem.

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 5 points 3 days ago

Just call it ML then, like we used to, and what describes it best