Technology

37719 readers

321 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

369

Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out, turning copyright law on its head (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org

177 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

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

[–] andresil@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why, because you say so?

This is just being obtuse and a bit of a cunt. You can't expect not to have negative reprecusions as an affect of companies being allowed to just churn out as much AI generated shit as they can. Especially since you also say:

companies are already bound by lots of laws governing their behaviour and ultimately it's their behaviour that is what's important to control.

Please read what you've again but slowly this time. You're saying you're fine with all the other regulation, but it shouldn't be done here cause of individual liberties when i've clearly stated free use can be specifically allowed for here...

Yes, because that means I can also use it without limit.

You've again stated your problem when i've given a more than sensible solution. Individual free use is fine, why would anyone want to stop you, individually or even with your friends, being creative? The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it. How about this time we get ahead of it instead of letting things get out of control then trying to do something about it?

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

This is just being obtuse and a bit of a cunt.

No, I'm seriously asking. You said that there has to be a price to pay, but I really don't see why. Why can't people be free to do these things? It doesn't harm anyone else.

It's reasonable to create laws to restrict behaviour that harms other people, but that requires the person proposing those laws to show that this is actually the case. And that the restrictions placed by those laws are reasonable and proportionate, not causing more harm than they prevent.

Individual free use is fine, why would anyone want to stop you, individually or even with your friends, being creative? The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it.

There is no sharp dividing line between these things. What if one of the adventures I create turns out so good that I decide to publish it? What if it becomes the basis for a roleplaying system that becomes popular enough that I start a publishing company for it?

The problems comes when companies with huge resources, influence, and nefarious motives decide to use it.

How about if one of those huge companies just wants to produce some entertainment that will sell really well and that I would enjoy?

You're not really making an argument for banning AI, here. You're making an argument for banning nefariousness. That's fine, but that's kind of a bigger separate issue.