|
|
|
|
|
|
by danpalmer
244 days ago
|
|
|
If there are problems that are specific to AI then sure we should legislate about it. For example defining what "fair use" is for AI training, that's a clearly new area. But most of the pushback I've seen to AI in policy is so over-fit to current AI that it would be trivial to work around it. You can argue that we'd be letting perfect be the enemy of good, but I think we'd be making policies that will be out of date by the time they even make it into law, and that we'll never make any progress at all. That said, I'm all for being proven wrong. The US tends to write highly specific legislation so I'm sure it'll try a few of these. The EU tends to write much more vague legislation specifically for this reason. We'll see how they end up working. |
|
|
I am not a patent attorney, but it seems like a clear violation of copyright. Based on your comment above regarding the breath and focus of laws and the fact that you feel the copyright law was not well specified for the AI situation. How could the current law have been written such that it would’ve handled the AI situation and avoided this mess that we’re in now?
My guess is none of it matters because now the AI is so important and so critical in the minds of many government leaders and business leaders that any violation of copyright will be excused, making the original law, meaningless in this situation, and undercutting this entire discussion.