- Nick Clegg, former Meta executive and UK Deputy Prime Minister, has reiterated a familiar line when it comes to AI and artist consent.
- He said that any push for consent would “basically kill” the AI industry.
- Clegg added that the sheer volume of data that AI is trained on makes it “implausible” to ask for consent.
If you’re giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn’t seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?
Bet you’re not worth $100+ million. Then you’d get it.
If someone wants to make me worth 100 million I wouldn’t complain. Can’t guarantee I’ll understand though.
A lot of AI fanboys secretly think that artists who rely on public funding to make a living deserve to be raped by gen AI companies.
The bit you’re missing is that the choice isnt between killing AI and killing the music industry, its between killing AI in the UK or pissing off IP holders somewhat. Do you think China give a fuck who’s IP they use in training models, or that they will stop if the UK passes a law making artists default out of using their work as training data?
What are you talking about this has nothing to do with UK policy decisions. The current UK government doesn’t have any interest in restricting AI usage I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from.
Nick Clegg never really had much to do with UK politics, he was a deputy prime minister but he wasn’t exactly in charge of anything, and he’s long since left politics entirely. His previous employment has no bearing on his current statements.
Because he’s speaking to a British newspaper about British policies. I’m assuming the second part as I don’t subscribe to the times so cant read the article, but there are currently plans in place in the UK to introduce an opt-out framework for people to remove permission for training on their work, with pushback from big names that want to charge rent on their old works, so I assume that is the subject.
Even if he wasn’t talking about the UK at all (which I think it is clear he is from context) my larger point still stands, the choice isn’t between stopping AI and allowing AI, its between allowing AI companies to operate in your jurisdiction or AI being trained elsewhere that is out of your control. There is no option for “stop this entirely”, unless you can persuade the USA and China at the very least to sign up to it. Which they wont.
Specially when you realize that AI is for more than music, literature and other forms of illegal data processing. It can be used in a huge amount of other ways. One way for example would be to replace our president with a Combination of 4 magistrates and 1 AI…the republicans get 2, the Democrats get 2. AI gets to propose actions to take but has 0 authority in doing anything. Once a proposal has been made to do something, the 4 people get to discuss the action and implement it. If the implementation ends in a tie, then AI can ask the people to vote by phone. AI would then break the tie via the people’s popular vote. And no more electoral college, just use AI to pick the president based on the popular vote.
Nice, I want to be the company owning that “AI” algorithm!
The person who offered it probably didn’t notice how IRL con artists too often work by “just offering an idea”.
Doesn’t really matter though does it as long as the weights are open sourced everyone can confirm that the AI is unbiased.
That model’s name? AI Gore.