Sebastian Fowler's Blog

it would be so awesome

A 13-year-old boy in Russia has been registered as a juvenile offender on charges of ‘LGBT propaganda’ and displaying extremist symbols after allegedly showing a video to classmates. As reported by Russian news outlet Mediazona, a case was opened against the 13-year-old, whose details were withheld to protect his identity, after his classmates’ parents raised a complaint with police about the video. The content of the video is unknown, but it was alleged that it contained a symbol designated as “extremist”. Because under Russian law responsibility for administrative offences can only be held by people aged 16 or older, the boy’s case was transferred to a regional Juvenile Affairs Commission. Charging the boy under Russia’s ‘LGBT propaganda’ law, the Commission suggested that the boy be removed from his school and transferred to a “special education institute” where he will be “treated by psychologists.”

We’re trying to decide which of these is a better option:

or

Tl;DR:

Google is saying that any music uploaded to YouTube is legally theirs to use in AI training.

This was to try to throw out a copyright case where the victims were trying to sue YouTube for allegedly using their music to train their AI

full discussion

“A new court filing claims that when indie artists upload music to YouTube, they grant a "broad license" that covers the AI initiatives of parent company Google.”

“Google says in a new court filing that YouTube’s terms of service grant a “broad license” for artificial intelligence models to be trained on music uploaded directly to the platform.”

“This argument came in Google’s Monday (June 8) motion to dismiss copyright infringement litigation filed earlier this year by a group of independent artists, songwriters and producers.

The lawsuit claims that Lyria 3, the AI music model launched by Google in February, was trained on songs ripped from YouTube without compensating artists.”

“The case is among dozens that have accused AI companies of illegally training their models on copyrighted sound, text and images in recent years.

In most of these lawsuits — including ones brought by the major record labels against AI music generators Suno and Udio — tech companies have argued that the so-called fair use principle of copyright law allows them to create transformative works without licensing the training data.”

Instead of making a fair use argument, Google is saying “they actually do have a license to train AI with the songs uploaded to YouTube by these indie artists.”

Google says there’s no evidence for Google using their specific works, but also that they have the right to use

the motion cites a clause in YouTube’s terms of service that states, “By providing content to the service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the service and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business.”

“if Google’s argument is accepted by the court, the company would be legally permitted to train AI models on and otherwise utilize that content for “derivative works.” However,

the situation might be different for music distributed through YouTube pursuant to licensing agreements with labels and publishers.”

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

Children die, death/murder is not an adult topic.

The Troubled Teen Industry exists, child trafficking is not an adult topic.

Children get raped, sexual assault is not an adult topic.

Children have alcoholic parents, addiction is not an adult topic.

Children get beat to the point of hospitalization at school, that level of violence is not an adult topic.