Futurism reports that Meta says it’s okay to feed copyrighted books to its AI models because they have no economic value.
Big tech companies like Meta, Google, and OpenAI, which own generative AI models, are already under fire for their blatant disregard for copyright laws and for stealing content from creators without proper consent, credit, or compensation.
When hyperscalers promote the idea that it’s okay to feed copyrighted material to generative AI, they are attempting to label any creative work as fodder for a larger generative AI model rather than a creative outlet by a human.
Secondly, the companies are establishing the narrative that the value of a creative output is determined by its impact on improving generative AI rather than how other humans deem it valuable.
Copyright and other protective laws ensure that human labour is not misused. A creative output takes work, hours of work, and is a unique representation of the person’s connectome.
Big tech with big money is lobbying to challenge intellectual property laws that primarily benefit companies, rather than artists and creators. While a section of the art and creator community may be keen to use generative AI, they must have transparent access to their creative data, a right to request deletion, and similar provisions outlined under the GDPR.
It is essential to note that companies that store your personal data, such as name, address, or financial credentials, can access and delete specific data; a GenAI model operates differently. The data, let’s say a few GBs of images, when trained, are homogenised with the rest, thereby losing a trail to a specific image.
The EU’s AI Act is the first regulation of its kind, bringing some sense to the chaos.
Conclusion
Big tech with GenAI must remember that people make the web a lively place through authentic sharing and creativity. It should not be reduced to a dead place where bots consume content by bots, view ads created by other bots, and keep the money flowing from one GenAI owner to another.
I mean, what kind of world would that be? Who wants that, except for people who already have billions in their bank accounts and stay protected, irrespective of what comes out of the IP laws?
AD
Comments (6)