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

  • JackGreenEarthEnglish
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    But I am against any copyright beyond forcing attribution to the original creator.

    • wewbullEnglish
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      which AI fails to do.

      • ZoboomafooEnglish
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Here’s your works cited for any generative AI:

        Humanity. “The Entire Publicly Accessible Internet . The World Wide Web, , 1 Jan. 1983, WWW.org.

        • wewbullEnglish
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          9 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I doubt that covers it.

      • JackGreenEarthEnglish
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        AI creators, at least the open source ones, are usually pretty open about where they got the training data for their model

      • assassin_aragornEnglish
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        At the very least, every AI should be able to spit out a comprehensive list of all the material it used for training. And it should be capable of removing any specific item and regenerating its algorithm.

        This is a fundamental requirement of the technology itself to function. What happens if one the training materials has a retraction? Or if the authors admit they used AI to generate it? You need to purge that knowledge to keep the AI healthy and accurate.