'Please regulate AI:' Artists push for U.S. copyright reforms but tech industry says not so fast

In 17 centuries, no workers doing protesting about steam engine.

sakurasukiToday 07:54 am JST

In 17 centuries, no workers doing protesting about steam engine.

The steam engine didn't wipe out all artistic livelihoods overnight like AI has the potential to.

There is no comparison between artistic works and steam engines.

Whatever has a life on the web will be fair game for AI in the end. It will keep generating a limited, vicarious simulation of the third-person human experience on the web until this becomes our own experience too as we increasingly regard online life as reality. Sooner or later, internet content too will increasingly become AI generated and our experience of the world will be that of a machine's interpretation of distant, echoing human experience.

AI execs are claiming that their industry is so important, so groundbreaking, that they should be exempt from the laws that govern use of copyrighted material. Their claims for the future are at best aspirational but hardly guaranteed. But they argue that if they are forced to pay for the copyrighted material they use to teach their AI programs then they will go broke. Artists complain that AI firms are using their copyrighted material without paying for it. AI argues that the "fair use" doctrine exempts them. This will probably end up before the US Supreme Court in the fullness of time.

The article below examines the problem in great depth.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2023-11-16/ai-investors-say-theyll-go-broke-if-they-have-to-pay-for-copyrighted-materials-dont-buy-it

But where's the problem, why do they fear an additional distribution channel? If someone gives an AI the prompt for artificially producing new artwork that is based on existing human artwork and contents of the AI data feed, then the AI 'knows' it from the input order prompt or from what it chooses itself during processing or generating. Then this following output is not freely displayed, only partly or descriptive, then offered to the requesting customer and of course it becomes a product that has to be paid for and is object to copyright, sales tax and so on. And from that money influx pool , minus AI operating and maintenance costs, the human artists are then paid too. I guess that's something those AI computers or blockchain systems could easily handle and such helping the artists and multiply their selling efforts.

But where's the problem, why do they fear an additional distribution channel?

Pretty obvious reason, they aren't getting paid by the users.

But where's the problem, why do they fear an additional distribution channel? If someone gives an AI the prompt for artificially producing new artwork that is based on existing human artwork and contents of the AI data feed, then the AI 'knows' it from the input order prompt or from what it chooses itself during processing or generating. Then this following output is not freely displayed, only partly or descriptive, then offered to the requesting customer and of course it becomes a product that has to be paid for and is object to copyright, sales tax and so on. And from that money influx pool , minus AI operating and maintenance costs, the human artists are then paid too. I guess that's something those AI computers or blockchain systems could easily handle and such helping the artists and multiply their selling efforts.

Because that would destroy their whole money making idea. They found a way to take bits and parts of the whole worlds art and media library, then put it back together into new content that is changed enough to not fall under copyright. Why invest into new movies and media when you can just resell what you don't own.

AI advances will just go up the ladder until there is very few left that is able to make money on it, the people cheering for AI now will be the ones complaining in a couple of years.

Let's face it. We are all totally currently screwed by A.I., just as many of our Ancestors were by the introduction of Computers, and likewise before them, by Cars, etc. , etc. It's called "Advancement"....

The difference here with A.I. is, well.. how far can we go ?

And here, I think we need to look back, at what some past visionaries envisioned in the World of Sci-Fi.

"Arthur C. Clarke" probably being the most famous of all within this field...

For those who prefer not to read, the "Terminator Movies" Series, is quite a thought provoking story, especially upon where we may head ... likewise the latest Mission impossible movie.

Sci-Fi authors of the past, have produced many examples of future-scenarios, which, we should perhaps now be taking heed of, and worrying about.

They found a way to take bits and parts of the whole worlds art and media library, then put it back together into new content that is changed enough to not fall under copyright.

Not true. The artists works were not changed at all and the AI industry is not make that claim. Rather works of various artists were used to teach the AI software correct-ish responses. The AI companies are not claiming they changed the content, rather they are hanging their hat on the "fair use" doctrine in US copyright law. The artists and publishers strongly disagree. The most important part of the recent writers and actors strike in the US was to ensure artists are compensated for works used by AI. The courts will make the final decision however.

Because that would destroy their whole money making idea.

Too bad. Their business model is probably illegal under US copyright law. Just because a lot of supposedly smart people threw a bunch of money at something doesn't mean they are somehow above the law. I see the courts handing these fools their expensively clad backsides.