Much as I dislike the theft of human labor that feeds many of the #generativeAI products we see today, I have to agree with @pluralistic that #copyright law is the wrong way to address the problem.
To frame the issue concretely: think of whom copyright law has benefited in the past, and then explain how it would benefit the individual creator when it is applied to #AI. (Hint: it won’t.)
Copyright law is already abused and extended to an absurd degree today. It already overreaches. It impoverishes society by putting up barriers to creation and allowing toll-collectors to exist between citizen artists and their audience.
*Labor* law is likely what we need to lean on. #unions and #guilds protect creators in a way that copyright cannot. Inequality and unequal bargaining power that lead to exploitation of artists and workers is what we need to address head-on.
Copyright will not save us.
“AI "art" and uncanniness”
https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand
Much as I dislike the theft of human labor that feeds many of the #generativeAI products we see today, I have to agree with @pluralistic that #copyright law is the wrong way to address the problem.
To frame the issue concretely: think of whom copyright law has benefited in the past, and then explain how it would benefit the individual creator when it is applied to #AI. (Hint: it won’t.)
@drahardja @pluralistic Labor laws would in no way stop AI.
We need federal laws directly banning the tech and the use of it. With jail time. That's the only thing that could stop it.
@drahardja @pluralistic I'm not sure why you're framing it as either/or. Both laws should be applied when it comes to stealing IP or abusing labor.
@drahardja @pluralistic I've been actually thinking Freedom of Speech, freedom from compulsion to speech, and freedom from speech that might incriminate you, all apply to being pushed or regulated to use an AI. 🤔. I can see this having applications in labor law, for sure.