Technology

38755 readers

187 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

200

Nick Clegg says asking artists for use permission would ‘kill’ the AI industry (www.theverge.com)

submitted 4 days ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As policy makers in the UK weigh how to regulate the AI industry, Nick Clegg, former UK deputy prime minister and former Meta executive, claimed a push for artist consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.

Speaking at an event promoting his new book, Clegg said the creative community should have the right to opt out of having their work used to train AI models. But he claimed it wasn’t feasible to ask for consent before ingesting their work first.

“I think the creative community wants to go a step further,” Clegg said according to The Times. “Quite a lot of voices say, ‘You can only train on my content, [if you] first ask’. And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.”

“I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first. I just don’t see how that would work,” Clegg said. “And by the way if you did it in Britain and no one else did it, you would basically kill the AI industry in this country overnight.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A realistic take on the situation.

I fully agree, despite how much people hate AI, training itself isn't infringement based on how copyright laws are written.

I think we need to treat it as the copier situation, the person who is distributing the copyright infringing material is at fault, not the tool used to create it.

[–] OfCourseNot@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I agree with both of you but it's a bit more nuanced than that: what if someone not familiar with the original IPs asks for a 'space wizard' or an 'Italian plumber cartoon', it outputs Obi Wan or Mario, and they use it in their work? Who's getting sued by Disney or Nintendo?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

I could fairly easily ask a human artist to draw me something that would infringe on a copyright for a character they had never even seen before. It would technically be against the law, but given that no other parties know about it, it's unlikely to ever get caught. The legal problems arise if I use that art in a visible fashion such that the copyright holder would find out, and then it would be me getting sued, not the artist.