Comment Re: Repeat after me (Score 1) 191
Agreed. It is a valid discussion and reducing it to a black and white generalization is absurd.
A complete win for Western content creators would likely leave AI development and advancement crippled compared to countries where it is unfettered. Our content creators can sip their kombuchas while foreign AI dominates the future.
A complete win for AI companies would likely result in continued, flagrant abuse of created content for profit in a manner which competes with the content creators. Doesn't seem right, either.
Why does it have to be one way or the other?
Why can't we have both?
AI can train on millions of public domain works for free. And they should be encouraging works to enter public domain faster. So instead of life+70, the copyright term can be reduced to something reasonable (this also allows use of works under copyleft licenses since once copyright expires, it's public domain).
If you want to use works newer than that still under copyright, then it has to be licensed. Plenty of people want their work to be licensed, so encourage it. Maybe some body will let you easily license a bunch of works for a bulk price with residuals and manage the payments. (Unfortunately, this excludes anything under copyleft as they're still under copyright).
More advanced AIs can then learn to ingest copyleft stuff in a license-respecting way so their output will be compatible with a desired license. If you want your project to be GPLv3, you tell the AI that and it only uses code that is licensed in ways compatible with the GPLv3 when it writes code, for example.
Of course, right now the big problem is the hype around AI. And it's hype, because in a couple of years it'll die down when everyone stops wanting to waste money on it. and the remaining companies will be able to ingest content at a slower more thoughtful rate while the rest of the work gets on the next hyped thing.