- Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
- He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
- Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
Then it should die.
This is like saying “if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die.” Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.
No, it’s not like saying that.
Please stop trying to use rape as a way to get an emotional response for something unrelated.
Cool, so I’ll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.
Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I’ll just assume it’s ok.
If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.
Contrary to popular belief among useful idiots, copyright and patent laws are not there to protect the working class.
If copyright and patent laws actually protected workers, why have we not seen rulers fight back against them until now?
This should be eye-opening to most of you, but that would involve admitting you were wrong.
Most people can’t do that.
If your industry can’t exist without theft then your industry doesn’t deserve to exist, pretty simple.
Copying isn’t theft, the original still exists. Just like watching pirated movies.
If someone pirates a movie for home use its no big deal because yes. If someone pirates a movie and then opens a movie theatre and starts charging people to watch the movie that’s an entirely different matter. AI is a business generating income, not a person skipping out on a $4 rental fee.
The AI industry doesn’t want to abolish or reform copyright law, they just want an exception so that they can keep appropriating shit. On the contrary, they’re pretty mad that AI stuff isn’t covered by more copyright.
AI bros are not on the side of open culture.
I’m going to start an AI company then I can legally pirate anything I want.
I wonder how these companies will gatekeep their special AI status.
With hundreds of millions of dollars.
Well that was the irony I was attempting to point out. People took it quite literally tho.
Copying isn’t theft, the original still exists. Just like watching pirated movies.
Shit take when the results are used for profit. Most of us that pirate aren’t legally monetizing our stash.
As long as people get punished for pirating media, corporations need to license their shit just as well.
Cool, so I can torrent without a VPN now?
Oh, only the super rich can benefit. How convenient.
I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.
oh noes
Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.
NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.
You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You’re gonna lose your billions in investment if you can’t plaigerize content?..fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.
Assholes
If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.
Fucking rapist mentaility right there.
My thought exactly. If consent isn’t needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?
This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.
I’m ok with “ai” dying
Great, let’s do that.
If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.
In principle I agree. The problem is that there are countries which don’t care about respecting law and if you kill AI in the West, all that will happen is the West will get left behind.
if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.
Good, I think it should be killed.
AI or the music industry?
AI. Rich people trying to change the law to get richer via shady means is a huge no from me every time.
Yes
Same thing for most of billionaires’ income sources.
“Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry].”
hence why they push so heavily for automation, it makes it possible to earn about the same profit while respecting human rights. (nobody has a right to a job)
If you’re giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn’t seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?
Bet you’re not worth $100+ million. Then you’d get it.
If someone wants to make me worth 100 million I wouldn’t complain. Can’t guarantee I’ll understand though.
A lot of AI fanboys secretly think that artists who rely on public funding to make a living deserve to be raped by gen AI companies.
The bit you’re missing is that the choice isnt between killing AI and killing the music industry, its between killing AI in the UK or pissing off IP holders somewhat. Do you think China give a fuck who’s IP they use in training models, or that they will stop if the UK passes a law making artists default out of using their work as training data?
What are you talking about this has nothing to do with UK policy decisions. The current UK government doesn’t have any interest in restricting AI usage I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from.
Nick Clegg never really had much to do with UK politics, he was a deputy prime minister but he wasn’t exactly in charge of anything, and he’s long since left politics entirely. His previous employment has no bearing on his current statements.
Because he’s speaking to a British newspaper about British policies. I’m assuming the second part as I don’t subscribe to the times so cant read the article, but there are currently plans in place in the UK to introduce an opt-out framework for people to remove permission for training on their work, with pushback from big names that want to charge rent on their old works, so I assume that is the subject.
Even if he wasn’t talking about the UK at all (which I think it is clear he is from context) my larger point still stands, the choice isn’t between stopping AI and allowing AI, its between allowing AI companies to operate in your jurisdiction or AI being trained elsewhere that is out of your control. There is no option for “stop this entirely”, unless you can persuade the USA and China at the very least to sign up to it. Which they wont.
Specially when you realize that AI is for more than music, literature and other forms of illegal data processing. It can be used in a huge amount of other ways. One way for example would be to replace our president with a Combination of 4 magistrates and 1 AI…the republicans get 2, the Democrats get 2. AI gets to propose actions to take but has 0 authority in doing anything. Once a proposal has been made to do something, the 4 people get to discuss the action and implement it. If the implementation ends in a tie, then AI can ask the people to vote by phone. AI would then break the tie via the people’s popular vote. And no more electoral college, just use AI to pick the president based on the popular vote.
Nice, I want to be the company owning that “AI” algorithm!
The person who offered it probably didn’t notice how IRL con artists too often work by “just offering an idea”.
Doesn’t really matter though does it as long as the weights are open sourced everyone can confirm that the AI is unbiased.
That model’s name? AI Gore.
