Should such a clause not be added as standard today, similar to the “salvatory clause,” provided that the content is not intended for the widest possible distribution?
Should such a clause not be added as standard today, similar to the “salvatory clause,” provided that the content is not intended for the widest possible distribution?
I do not think there is any solid answer.
The interpretation of laws is highly in flux, swinging depending on who is lobbying who on any given day.
I think we’re headed towards the worst option though, which people think they want on impulse, but actually really don’t.
I think we’re going to see regulatory capture on a scale impossible to recover from.
Regulatory capture that will simply have the biggest AI companies buy out all of the rights to all of everyones information to such a degree that it is impossible to compete with them, giving them defacto control over AI and its censorship, and everyone trying to avoid being swept up will inevitably be shovelled into using some forms of platforms that these companies have the rights to.
I think that the way it should work is that AI can input whatever it wants, and just as intended, people can claim product resultants that qualify as copywritten material.
This would both make more incentive towards having the end user run local AI/less centralization, and incentivise ownership amongst citizens.
What we’re heading to now might completely eliminate any chance we ever have of having AI that isn’t massively controlled by corporate goals and right wing billionaire feelings, and no matter how some people try to avoid it, the affect on the population will be impossible to ignore.