Artificial Intelligence
Out of context: Reply #988
- Started
- Last post
- 1,341 Responses
- thumb_screws1
Australian society of authors take on it.
“This issue is one of basic fairness. The developers of AI chose to help themselves to authors’ property in order to build powerful, revolutionary software. They didn’t ask permission. The inescapable message to authors and artists is that while your work has been essential in developing our product, we’re not prepared to pay you for it. Tech companies will charge the end user of their products but will not pay for the labour that enabled it. It’s a supply chain that stops short of the primary producer. Like paying the supermarket for your fruit and vegetables without any of that revenue going back to the farmers who grew the produce.”
“I know the argument will be made that AI services are so valuable to the public that any means are justified. But turning a blind eye to the legitimate rights of copyright owners threatens to diminish already-precarious creative careers. Where does that approach get us? The enrichment of a few powerful companies at the cost of thousands of individual creators. This is not how a fair market functions. Writers and artists are real people who bring us joy, give our lives meaning and deserve dignity and fair payment for their very real work.
“To be clear, we are not anti-tech and we support emerging technologies but feel there has been a missed opportunity to develop artificial intelligence ethically; with transparency, permission and payment, unlocking new opportunities for our creative industries. Instead, authors and artists are being locked out of the AI boom. It’s not too late to turn this around and move to appropriate licensing.”