- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Remember when the executive branch openly taking a side in active legal proceedings would have elicited a huge shock and rocked the foundations of what America means
The US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, separately told G20 officials at a meeting in North Carolina on Wednesday that their countries should embrace fair use and allow AI companies to train their models on creators’ work while finding a way to “protect artists”.
All of the pending cases will probably revolve around whether AI systems make fair use of copyrighted material by using it to create new, transformative content. The first two judges to consider the question issued diverging rulings last year.
That legal precedent ends with changing a few words of a book or a few lines of code and being able to claim it’s yours…
Including the code for these chatbots.
There’s no long term plan this works out.
I think the inconsistency is the point. It’ll be based on how much money you have. So individuals will always be in the wrong, companies can legally steal from artists, and megacorps can legally use whatever they like. But smaller corps can’t steal from megacorps, so AI models will always be safe.
That’s not how legal precedence works, and trying to force that dissonance on society always results in societal collapse
I couldn’t agree more. The fact that it isn’t preventing selective enforcement of the law tells me we’re way past legal precedence being relevant (and well into societal collapse).
We’re already balls deep in societal collapse, our ruling class have no incentive not take everything they can get while there’s still anything worth taking
I think you might to reply to comment above mine:
It’ll be based on how much money you have. So individuals will always be in the wrong, companies can legally steal from artists, and megacorps can legally use whatever they like. But smaller corps can’t steal from megacorps,
It obviously already is, and I assumed that they meant it will continue to progress down that path.
But you seemed to have missed all that…
No, I definitely meant to reply to you arguing that an inconsistent legal precedent would lead to societal collapse, and you definitely don’t know what you’re talking about
Sometimes I wonder if .ml accounts really can’t figure out obvious stuff, or are just pretending …
It never really matters tho
There’s nothing to figure out, what you said was kinda stupid and now you’re embarassed
