AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content

in spite of all this I still don't think I agree with the principal of copyright.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The US Copyright Office is taking public comment on potential new rules around generative AI’s use of copyrighted materials, and the biggest AI companies in the world had plenty to say.

We’ve collected the arguments from Meta, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, Hugging Face, StabilityAI, and Anthropic below, as well as a response from Apple that focused on copyrighting AI-written code.

There are some differences in their approaches, but the overall message for most is the same: They don’t think they should have to pay to train AI models on copyrighted work.

The Copyright Office opened the comment period on August 30th, with an October 18th due date for written comments regarding changes it was considering around the use of copyrighted data for AI model training, whether AI-generated material can be copyrighted without human involvement, and AI copyright liability.

There’s been no shortage of copyright lawsuits in the last year, with artists, authors, developers, and companies alike alleging violations in different cases.

Here are some snippets from each company’s response.

The original article contains 168 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

God jesus will you capitalist shitstains just pay for the training datasets already so people will STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW BLATANTLY UNETHICAL YOU FUCKERS ARE IT'S NOT FAIR USE IF YOU'RE USING IT FOR CORPORATE PURPOSE AND IF YOUTUBE COMES AFTER ME FOR JUST SAMPLING FOUR SECONDS OF A SONG, YOU FUCKERS SHOULD BE HEMORRHAGING MONEY FOR THIS

christ man i just want to like AI as a tool in my artistic/creative toolbox but these wallet-hearted techbro fucksticks won't even take a STEP towards meeting creative IP-holders halfway.