"The AI companies are claiming fair use, but this argument is bogus. It's bogus because while they claim it's fair to use the work of creators as training data, they do multi-million dollar deals with rights holders and publishers like Disney and Condé Nast and Vox and Warner Music."
"I learned a very important thing as an artist, which is that change does not mean death. You can get back up, and you can fucking go again. AI will likely break a lot of the models that creative people have worked hard to build over the years. Still, he believes they will thrive."
"If it's legal to just use it, why pay? Why pay them and not creators - not the millions of illustrators and musicians and writers - whose work has been used to train these models without compensation."
Patreon CEO Jack Conte addressed AI's impact on creators at SXSW, positioning it as another disruptive cycle in internet history similar to streaming and vertical video formats. While not anti-AI, Conte argues that AI companies' claims of 'fair use' when training models on creator content are hypocritical, given they simultaneously pay major publishers like Disney, Condé Nast, and Warner Music for similar rights. He contends that if fair use truly applied, these companies wouldn't need to pay established rights holders. Conte emphasizes that creators have survived previous disruptions and will adapt, but they deserve compensation for their work used in AI training, just as traditional media companies receive.
Read at TechCrunch
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]