Essential is probably a binary category, but your removal could be an incredibly expensive part of the supply chain.
Regarding copyright laws: there is obviously a big debate about the creative sector and how it would be impacted. What do you think would be Australia’s most effective approach?
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t understand the intricacies of copyright law. But I have to say: surely there has to be a way to support both sides, which allows AI training in Australia, and on the other hand ensures that Australian creatives, who currently receive nothing, can benefit from it.
In the US, you can practice for free under fair use, even on Australian content. There are surely ways to guarantee their remuneration. I’ve been trying to talk to people over the past few months to figure this out, and it seems that AI companies are sensitive to licensing but not price. There is a way for the Australian government to extract very high value from these companies, by forcing them to pay into a central fund which would then ensure that Australian creatives are better off.
I fear that the creative sector will be the very first sector to feel the impacts of AI in this way. Take coding for example. Online software repositories are not copyrighted, but they have been used to train AI models, and we now have AI capabilities that make it much more difficult for software engineers, especially entry-level software engineers, to get a job. So ideally you would have a model that you could actually use to support different sectors of your economy during difficult transitions if AI starts to wipe out a lot of the prospects of different sectors.
Can you explain what you mean when you say AI companies are “price sensitive” and not “licensing sensitive”?
What’s interesting, from what I understand, is that AI companies think that if they pay for a license in Australia, it would weaken the applicability of fair use in the US. They don’t seem willing to take that risk.
I want to clarify that I do not work for an AI company: I am not paid by a company, I do not speak on their behalf, and I do not understand all of the internal machinations that inform them. But it appears that the fair use doctrine in the United States is supported by the criteria you must meet for fair use to apply. One of them, as I mentioned, is that the use is “transformative,” which is what AI training seems to be. Everyone agrees. Then the second is that fair use doesn’t already undermine the licensing market for this purpose.
Gn world
