All it would take for AI to completely collapse is a ruling in the US saying these companies have to licence the content they used to train these tools.

They simply would never reach a sustainable business model if they had to fairly compensate all the people who wrote, drew, edited, sang or just created the content they use.

Simply being forced to respect attribution and licenses would kill them. Will that ruling ever happen? Maybe not. Should it? I think so.

@thelinuxEXP
They would just move to other language corpuses, no?
@lepapierblanc They would either have to pay the people who make the content, or use completely copyright free / license free material, which would basically render them pretty useless.
@thelinuxEXP @lepapierblanc I'm not sure I'd like that kind of world... I'm already dubious when the try to jail torrent users. To say that copying is theft is not a solution.
I prefer the: if you make profit with the copy, then you owe a percentage to the original author. But even that, will be difficult to apply in tech.
So my personal choice is: Universal Basic Income. Then if you want to pass your life creating, then do it!!
@egermond @thelinuxEXP @lepapierblanc It's not that copying is theft, it's that they haven't sought permission for reuse in a commercial setting. That's already the norm in *most* areas, whether physical or digital (I can't just wholesale copy a physical book and sell it under another name, but I can photocopy stuff to give excerpts to students).
@chiraag @thelinuxEXP @lepapierblanc
I was used to be greeted by those kind of videos when I bought a DVD.
So, yes, people do say that copying is theft!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU
Piracy it's a crime

YouTube
@egermond @thelinuxEXP @lepapierblanc And what I'm trying to get across is that *even if you reject that premise*, what these AI companies are doing is blatantly unethical and violates all norms of reuse.