• moon_matter@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Devil’s advocate. It means that only large companies will have AI, as they would be the only ones capable of paying such a large number of people. AI is going to come anyway except now the playing field is even more unfair since you’ve removed the ability for an individual to use the technology.

    Instituting these laws would just be the equivalent of companies pulling the ladder up behind them after taking the average artist’s work to use as training data.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How would you even go about determining what percentage belongs to the AI vs the training data? You could argue all of the royalties should go to the creators of the training data, meaning no one could afford to do it.

      • moon_matter@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would you identify text or images generated by AI after they have been edited by a human? Even after that, how would you know what was used as the source for training data? People would simply avoid revealing any information and even if you did pass a law and solved all of those issues, it would still only affect the country in question.