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

So they're admitting that their entire business model requires them to break the law. Sounds like they shouldn't exist.

I do love how AI has gotten Corporate Giants to start attacking the Copyright System they've used to beat down the little man for generations

you know what? I like this argument. Software/Streaming services are "too complex and costly to work in practice" therefore my viewership/participation "could not exist" if I were forced to pay for them.

Not that I am a fan of the current implementation of copyright in the US, but I know if I was planning on building my business around something that couldn’t exist without violating copyright I would surely thought of that fairly early on.

Another reason why copyright should be shortened... Society has changed massively in the last 100 years, but every expression of our modern society is locked behind copyright.

I keep thinking how great it would be if the federal government made a central server system to access digital content for free via taxes.

All public domain and publicly funded research and content, all in one place. Could also host owned content for people/entities and pay out royalties automatically based on consumption.

There are ways to make this fairly affordable to everyone via taxes, but maybe the big opportunity is it could also allow companies to train AI on all the data for a fat, but fair subscription. The value of that could easily pay for enough to shrink any tax costs for the public.

Then they shouldn't exist.

I'd be fine with this argument if these generative tools were only being used by non-profits. But they aren't.

So I think there has to be some compromise here. Some type of licensing fee should be paid by these generative AI tools.

So... This may be an unpopular question. Almost every time AI is discussed, a staggering number of posts support very right-wing positions. EG on topics like this one: Unearned money for capital owners. It's all Ayn Rand and not Karl Marx. Posters seem to be unaware of that, though.

Is that the "neoliberal Zeitgeist" or what you may call it?

I'm worried about what this may mean for the future.

ETA: 7 downvotes after 1 hour with 0 explanation. About what I expected.

Fine. Shut them down.

Sounds like a win to me

I’m just trying to think about how refined AI would be if it could only use public domain data.

ChatGPT channels Jane Austin and Shakespeare.

If they can't afford a thing they want, that's too bad.

The fact that their dream-AI 'cant exist' without stealing from everyone there is only one message to bounce back there from the rest of us;

'good'

Of course they will exist. China will own them all.

Huh. You'd think in a situation where copyright is threatened by a lack of AI regulation, Disney would be all over this. Oh wait. They're trying to use generative AI to make movies cheaper. Nevermind.

How about we drop copyright terms to 30 years?

Sounds good.

We are about to witness an incredibly power grab. They will be claiming practically the entirety of human intellectual works for example also for contributions made by billions of users on social media. Basically they will monopolize the entire power of GenAI for themselves.

This wil practically make free use of that power illegal. Generative AI will eliminate more and more jobs in the coming decades while we won't be allowed to use it at all.

Stop threatening me with a good time!

The copyrighted material has no business being used for AI training anyways. Like why train AI to write books or make art when you could feed it documentation and teach it data entry instead like stuff that would actually work well for this and wouldn't require copyrighted works.

Slaves "could not exist" if firms are made to pay wages.

Ooooh no! We might, like, get to keep our jobs and homes.

and how exactly will the untold millions and millions of rights holders be identified?