What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?

why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?

Edit: if you're going to downvote me, can you explain why? I am not saying AI is a good thing here. I'm just asking for evidence that it's universally disliked, i.e. there aren't a lot of fans. It seems there are lots of people coming to the defense of AI in this thread, so it clearly isn't universally disliked.

You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.

But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don't currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that's the rationale AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate there). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I'm certainly not an expert on UK law.

But people sadly don't really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of "AI Bad", and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.

Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?

AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn't make sense to me at all.

AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.

Are you an artist or a creative person?

If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.

Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Outside of the marketing labels of "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning", it's nothing like real intelligence or learning at all.

(And that's still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration (US law, not UK, mind you). For example, the potential market effects of generating an automated system which uses people's artwork to directly compete against them.)

Oh are we giving AI the same rights as humans now?
On what grounds?

I never claimed that in this case. As I said in my response: There have been won lawsuits that machines are allowed to index and analyze copyrighted material without infringing on such rights, so long as they only extract objective information, such as what AI typically extracts. I'm not a lawyer, and your jurisdiction may differ, but this page has a good overview: https://blog.apify.com/is-web-scraping-legal/

EDIT: For the US description on that page, it mentions the US case that I referred to: Author's Guild v Google

You should read the opinion of Stephen King about that precise point. The short version: "I'd write books even if it was illegal".

Because pretty much nobody wants it or likes it.

That's just not true, chatgpt & co are hugely popular, which is a big part of the issue.

Nazism was hugely popular in Germany in the early 20th century, but was it a good thing?

A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.

Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.

All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.

Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won't have millionaire scumbags such as 'paul mccartney' living like kings while children starve.

Analogies are fallacies. All they do is reveal that you can't argue the merits of the topic at hand, so you need to derail and distract by pivoting to something else.

Now we need to debate the accuracy of your analogy, which is never 1:1, instead of talking about what we were talking about previously.

You're also arguing with the wrong person. You should be talking to the person who argued "AI is a negative because pretty much nobody likes it" instead of the person who says it's not true that "nobody likes it."

You're literally only looking for an angle to shit on AI so you can fit in with the average idiots.

AI discussion at this point are litmus tests for who is average that lets other average people do their thinking for them. It really puts into perspective how much popular opinion should be scrutinized.

Lol says the guy that's probably going to pirate GTA 6.

And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?

Things like rent won't be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you're not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you're arguing for compensating their feudal lords.

when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?

Corporations will also make less money because there are no copyright and patent laws. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.

This is how we put more money in the hands of the working class. It''s sad watching you fight tooth and nail against it just as you've been conditioned to do.

Lol everything you create will now be stolen by Disney who will own the only organizations that can reach an audience.

Thanks for giving them free money forever just so you can spite people with actual talent.

How is disney going to make its money without copyright and patent laws?

How will their movies sell if it's legal for anyone to copy and redistribute them?

How will they make as much money off of merchandise if they have to legally compete with people who don't hold copyrights to their IP?

The only "Lol" here is how proud you people are for being useful idiots. This is why things are the way they are.

You're moving the goal posts and making assumptions.

Please address my question how do you propose any intellectual entity be compensated to their creator without any kind of theft protection?

Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.

I'm not moving any goalposts nor am I making any assumptions. You are upset because rather than learn from your cognitive dissonance, you attack the person who calls it out.

Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.

Hey, you're the one who's arguing to exacerbate the disparity in wealth. Not me.

You do realize the root of this thread was this question, right?

why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?

In the early 20th century, Nazism was not a universally regarded negative.

I think you're mistaken -- there are a large number of people who vehemently dislike it, why is probably why you think that.