I admit that I am biased enough to immediately expect the AI agreement to be exactly what we need right now if this is how Meta reacts to it. Which I know is stupid because I genuinely have no idea what is in it.
If I'd were to guess Meta is going to have a problem with chapter 2 of "AI Code of Practice" because it deals with copyright law, and probably conflicts with their (and others approach) of ripping text out of copyrighted material (is it clear yet if it can be called fair use?)
We have exceptions, which are similar, but the important difference is that courts decide what is fair and what is not, whereas exceptions are written in law. It is a more rigid system that tend to favor copyright owners because if what is seen as "fair" doesn't fit one of the listed exceptions, copyright still applies. Note that AI training probably fits one of the exceptions in French law (but again, it is complicated).
I don't know the law in other European countries, but AFAIK, EU and international directives don't do much to address the exceptions to copyright, so it is up to each individual country.
Same in Sweden. The U.S. has one of the broadest and most flexible fair use laws.
In Sweden we have "citaträtten" (the right to quote). It only applies to text and it is usually said that you can't quote more than 20% of the original text.
Even if it gets challenged successfully (and tbh I hope it does), the damage is already done. Blocking it at this stage just pulls up the ladder behind the behemoths.
Unless the courts are willing to put injunctions on any model that made use of illegally obtained copyrighted material - which would pretty much be all of them.
Anthropic bought millions of books and scanned them, meaning that (at least for those sources) they were legally obtained. There has also been rampant piracy used to obtain similar material, which I won't defend. But it's not an absolute - training can be done on legally acquired material.
Apologies, I read your original statement as somehow concluding that you couldn't train an AI legally. I just wanted to make it extra clear that based on current legal precedent in the U.S., you absolutely can. Methodology matters, though.
You really went all out with showing your contempt, huh? I'm glad that you're enjoying the tech companies utterly dominating US citizens in the process
