Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out
www.theguardian.com
The tech company’s latest proposal about generative AI turns copyright law on its head, and could especially hurt smaller content creators, say experts

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.

  •  ricecake   ( @ricecake@beehaw.org ) 
    12•1 year ago

    Imagine being able to recall the important parts of a movie, it’s overall feel, and significant themes and attributes after only watching it one time.

    That’s significantly closer to what current AI models do. It’s not copyright infringement that there are significant chunks of some movies that I can play back in my head precisely. First because memory being owned by someone else is a horrifying thought, and second because it’s not a distributable copy.

    •  phillaholic   ( @phillaholic@lemm.ee ) 
      8•1 year ago

      the thought of human memory being owned is horrifying. We’re talking about AI. This is a paradigm shift. New laws are inevitable. Do we want AI to be able to replicate small creators work and ruin their chances at profitability? If we aren’t careful, we are looking at yet another extinction wave where only the richest who can afford the AI can make anything. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to be concerned.

      •  ricecake   ( @ricecake@beehaw.org ) 
        7•1 year ago

        The question to me is how you define what the AI is doing in a way that isn’t hilariously overbroad to the point of saying “Disney can copyright the style of having big eyes and ears”, or “computers can’t analyze images”.

        Any law expanding copyright protections will be 90% used by large IP holders to prevent small creators from doing anything.

        What exactly should be protected that isn’t?

    •  jarfil   ( @jarfil@beehaw.org ) 
      1•1 year ago

      my head […] not a distributable copy.

      There has been an interesting counter-proposal to that: make all copies “non-distributable” by replacing the 1:1 copying, by AI:AI learning, so the new AI would never have a 1:1 copy of the original.

      It’s in part embodied in the concept of “perishable software”, where instead of having a 1:1 copy of an OS installed on your smartphone/PC, a neural network hardware would “learn how to be a smartphone/PC”.

      Reinstalling, would mean “killing” the previous software, and training the device again.