AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content::The companies building generative AI tools like ChatGPT say updated copyright laws could interfere with their ability to train capable AI models. Here are comments from OpenAI, StabilityAI, Meta, Google, Microsoft and more.

  • realharo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Scale matters. For example

    • A bunch of random shops having security cameras, where their employees can review footage

    • Every business in a country having a camera connected to a central surveillance network with facial recognition and search capabilities

    Those two things are not the same, even though you could say they’re “not much different” - it’s just a bunch of cameras after all.

    Also, the similarity between human learning and AI training is highly debatable.

    • Both of your examples are governed by the same set of privacy laws, which talk about consent, purpose and necessity, but not about scale. Legislating around scale open up the inevitable legal quagmires of “what scale is acceptable” and “should activity x be counted the same as activity y to meet the scale-level defined in the law”.

      Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.

      • lollow88@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.

        What do you think the difference between normal internet traffic and a ddos attack is?