You shouldn't need a permission slip to read a webpage–whether you do it with your own eyes, or use software to help. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/ai-and-copyright-expanding-copyright-hurts-everyone-heres-what-do-instead
@eff I can't help thinking that if huge companies need to obtain the raw materials for their products for free, when their products are supposed to make them rich, AND potentially put the original creators of the raw materials out of work, there's something wrong. Surely we should allow the creators to share in the profits generated by their work?
@jonpsp @eff First of all, we shouldn't treat the AI models (their design, training data, weights, etc.) as property of the companies. Those models should be public, so everyone can benefit, including authors.
Second, don't create new copyright, apply existing one. If you train AI on a million books, pay for a million books. Buying a book should cost money (so authors get paid), reading a book that you own (or training a model on it) should be free.
1/?
@jonpsp @eff Third, as EFF says, the publishers already eat most of the profits, while creators get pittance. The same would happen with any money from AI companies. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the publishers would be the ones trying to replace creators with AI.
AI is the new face of old problems, a distraction. Instead of narrowly focusing on AI, we should focus on creators directly. Also on the environment directly, on privacy directly, etc. Strike hydra's body, not its newest head.