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.

  • 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).