California bill (AB 412) would effectively ban open-source generative AI

[trappedslider]

California’s A.B. 412: A Bill That Could Crush Startups and Cement A Big Tech AI Monopoly

California legislators have begun debating a bill (A.B. 412) that would require AI developers to track and disclose every registered copyrighted work used in AI training. At first glance, this might sound like a reasonable step toward transparency. But it’s an impossible standard that could crush...

www.eff.org

It's a half-baked attempt at plugging a hole in a ship that's already at the bottom of the ocean. Pandora's box is already open. Cats do not go back into the bag if you shake your fist angrily at them. This is about optics and giving grounds for lawsuits to happen, not to actually figure out a solution to a problem.

 

[CleverNickName]

Even so, I'd support it.

It's what the AI opposition has been clamoring for all along: disclosure of every single copyrighted work used in training AI. Disclosing means they are one step closer to paying people for the use of their creations.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Even so, I'd support it.

I'd read the linked article before jumping on that bandwagon!

 

[CleverNickName]

I'd read the linked article before jumping on that bandwagon!

Oh I tried, but I had to stop at "A.I. Training Is Like Reading" because that's just false. But I'll try again...

They're right about it being a gift for big tech. But then again: isn't the cat already out of the bag and et cetera?

But in all honesty: this is the first real piece of legislation that will have a measurable impact on the future of A.I. technology. But this issue isn't going to be fixed by One Single Thing; it is going to take several bills and acts of legislation to even begin. I bet a lot of people are interested in making sure this is the only such attempt.

 

[Scribe]

It's a start.

 

[Micah Sweet]

California’s A.B. 412: A Bill That Could Crush Startups and Cement A Big Tech AI Monopoly

California legislators have begun debating a bill (A.B. 412) that would require AI developers to track and disclose every registered copyrighted work used in AI training. At first glance, this might sound like a reasonable step toward transparency. But it’s an impossible standard that could crush...

www.eff.org

It's a half-baked attempt at plugging a hole in a ship that's already at the bottom of the ocean. Pandora's box is already open. Cats do not go back into the bag if you shake your fist angrily at them. This is about optics and giving grounds for lawsuits to happen, not to actually figure out a solution to a problem.

How exactly can you ban AI at a state level?

 

[gnarlygninja]

Oh I tried, but I had to stop at "A.I. Training Is Like Reading" because that's just false. But I'll try again...

They're right about it being a gift for big tech. But then again: isn't the cat already out of the bag and et cetera?

But in all honesty: this is the first real piece of legislation that will have a measurable impact on the future of A.I. technology. But this issue isn't going to be fixed by One Single Thing; it is going to take several bills and acts of legislation to even begin. I bet a lot of people are interested in making sure this is the only such attempt.

Check out the related article about the Meta lawsuits, where they argue it's "hyperbolic" to call Meta grabbing the books from BitTorrent piracy.

 

[trappedslider]

If the goal was to basically shut it all down...at least in the US then this would do it.

 

[MoonSong]

How exactly can you ban AI at a state level?

More like they are forcing companies in the state/with connection in the state to disclose all copyrighted material used in training or force some heavy consequence.

 

[MoonSong]

If the goal was to basically shut it all down...at least in the US then this would do it.

You're talking as if it was a bad thing. You know, there's always public domain stuff like Guttenberg library?