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.

  • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The scope here is not limited to “can someone legally get in trouble under current law” (which, seems likely but is still working its way through courts). The discussion is specifically discussing ethics. Person C has created nothing. They should have no product to sell, if not for persons A and B. Their competition with those that their product is derived from is a parasitic relationship, plain and simple. They are performing an act of exploitation with measurable harm both to persons A and B but also to further development of their craft by destroying any incentive to continue it.

    Now, in some sort of alternate economic system, where one’s livelihood is not tied to their vocation, sure, it’s possibly not problematic because the economic harm is removed. However, in current capitalist systems that are in place where LLMs are heavily hyped, it’s an ethically bankrupt action to take.

    ETA: No amount of mental gymnastics can change the fact that use of others’ works without their consent to train a model, then claiming authorship and competing IS plainly theft of the labor that went into creating the original works.

    That’s not too say that LLMs and they like don’t have value or often require effort to produce something worthwhile. Just that they need to be used in an ethical manner that improves the human condition, not as another tool to rob others of the fruit of their labors.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll remind you the original article title literally contains the words “copyright law”

      This discussion is entirely about legality, not ethics.

      By your stupid logic, I have created nothing in my job designing automation systems, since I just look at what people currently do, program a computer to do those tasks instead, and I profit off those people no longer needing to do that job.

      You want to keep everyone fully employed in needless tasks? Go join the Mennonites.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I feel that you’re being deliberately obtuse here in order to avoid the ethics dilemma.

        A design is a “thing”, software is a “thing” even if it is physically intangible. Designing automation systems requires more than just looking at existing processes or algorthmic modeling. It requires synthetic and abstract thought. Nor is it a parasitic process; the automation has value by itself nor is it dependent upon the outputs of those whose tasks it automates. Automation, in theory, also improves the human condition by reducing amount of labor required by a given individual (though this particular good has largely been stolen since the 80s).