Technology

37736 readers

46 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

380

Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out, turning copyright law on its head (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by 0x815@feddit.de to c/technology

163 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well fleshbags have to pay several years worth of salary to get their education, so by your comparison, Google's AI should too.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine thinking Public Education doesn't count. Or that no one without a college degree ever invented anything useful. That's before we get to your notion of "College SHOULD be expensive, for everyone, always".

The problem with education is NOT that some people pay less for theirs, or nothing at all, nor that some even have the audacity to learn quickly. AI could help everyone to have a chance to learn cheaply, even quickly.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You're just off on your own little rant now, arguing points I never even implied.

[–] jarfil 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's wrong on so many levels:

Go check the Gutenberg Project and the patent registry, come back when you've learned them all, they're 100% free for everyone.
Fleshbags have to pay for "dumbed down" educational material just to have a chance at learning anything during their lifespan, AIs don't.
The lion's share of "paying for education" isn't even paid for education, but for certification. AIs would have to pay the same... if any were dumb enough to spend "several years worth of salary" on some diploma.
The only part worth paying for, is "hands on experience", which right now is far more expensive for AIs (need simulations and robots built).
Training AIs already isn't free, they need thousands to millions of repetitions to learn the stuff, which means quite a buck in server costs.

So just because fleshbags are really bad at learning, does not mean Google's AI has to pay for the same shortcomings, they already pay for their own.