• patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I don’t think they’re wrong in saying that if they aren’t allowed to train on copyrighted works then they will fall behind. Maybe I missed it in the article, but Japan for example has that exact law (use of copyright to train generative AI is allowed).

    Personally I think we need to give them somewhat of an out by letting them do it but then taxing the fuck out of the resulting product. “You can use copyrighted works for training but then 50% of your profits are taxed”. Basically a recognition that the sum of all copyrighted works is a societal good and not just an individual copyright holders.

    https://jackson.dev/post/generative-ai-and-copyright/

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      No, taxes implies a monopoly on the training data. The government profits. The rights holders get nothing back.

      If private data is deemed public for AI training then the results of that training (code+weights+source list) should also be deemed public.

      • Pika@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        53 minutes ago

        fully agree, the only way I’m ok with fair use for AI is if the resulting product is public use. Even if they want to charge for the product to use their frontend, give the ability to use the system local (if your system can support it) much like how most self hosting software does it