Not OP, but that should be part of the update, I think.

I think we can all agree there does need to be an update. You don't want to forever outlaw deep learning (even if you do want to, that's not going to happen so it's worth helping to shape the future)

It's very complicated with a bunch of moving parts but I really want society to start arguing about it so we can get to a semi-fair place

Yeah, that's a good idea. Stop the most important advance in storing, retrieving, and disseminating knowledge since the printing press because muh copyright!!1!!

Never mind that you've just handed control of an incredibly-powerful tool over to nations that DGAF about copyright law.

If copyright interests want to fight AI, then copyright has to go. It's that simple. It's an unnecessary fight, but somebody needs to convince them of that.

Each time someone clicks "send" on chatGPT, Warner Bros gets 1c

$25 to Elsevier per GPU purchase

I'll be honest, even if this comment won't fly: It is impossible to change the views here, on this point. Specifically, here.

I do share your opinion. Others may argue "What about x country? They don't care!", even though that position is about as good as making anything excusable because someone else did it.

I might add, I'm really not trying to be toxic. Just saying this based on what I see when this comes up.

I don't think you will ever see any law to benefit the creators. Better to eliminate it and at least let the artists the freedom to work with any media they want. Artists will generally still be poor, but they'll be more creative.

I don't see how any of these authors loses money when you use chatgpt, even in theory.

You weren't going to buy a book instead of asking a question.

what if a classroom of students learnt from your book, and ended up with a high paying job, innovation, or production, none of which makes any profit for you as an author of said book (except for the copy sold to the student)?