It is very worrying that new UK tech minister Liz Kendall is bringing in an adviser who has - said AI companies will never compensate creatives - echoed big tech’s calls for copyright reform - echoed big tech’s false claims that UK copyright law is ‘uncertain’ and therefore needs clarifying Why is this government so set on throwing creatives under the bus to benefit AI companies? theguardian.com/technology/2…

"AI cannot 'create' without our music. We never consented to having our music used to build a multi-billion dollar technology. We have not been asked, we have not been paid, but we have been robbed, disrespected and mocked by rich technocrats. This fight is bigger than music." - @djpain1, one of the independent musicians suing AI music companies Suno & Udio

Incredibly important report on AI training & copyright released today by the European Commission. It gets lots right, slamming the idea that creators should be required to opt-out of having their works used for free by AI companies. It says: - Generative AI must be based on opt-in consent - Current EU law does *not* permit generative AI training on copyrighted work without a license. Some claim Article 4 of the CDSM does, but this view is mistaken. - Requiring creators to opt-out or have their work trained on for free would be unfair and contravene international law - AI systems don't learn like humans, from a technical or legal perspective It suggests a solution of a statutory exception for AI training with an unwaivable right of equitable remuneration for authors and rights holders. I'm not sure this is the right solution - but it's great to see the Commission coming out so strongly in favour of respecting creators' rights, and making it clear that tech companies' dreams of unpaid use of copyrighted works cannot be permitted. Read the full report here: europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e…

On a recent panel, we were asked whether AI companies, if they replace jobs with AGI, will distribute their profits among the public, giving us all more time to be creative. I said no: these companies are already exploiting people. Why would that change? My full response:

We should all thank Baroness Kidron and the large majority of the Lords who voted 5 times to protect creators by requiring AI companies to reveal their training data. We should also condemn the @UKLabour government for 5 times refusing that request. If you’re in the UK and you ever find yourself wondering why AI companies can get away with illegally using your work behind closed doors, the answer is now simple: the government refused to force them to do otherwise. There is no other reason.

The UK government was just defeated in the House of Lords for a *fifth* time over AI training data transparency. The Lords continue to insist, rightly, that AI companies be required to disclose their training data. Without transparency, creators can't enforce their rights. Please watch the electrifying end to Baroness Kidron's closing speech ahead of the vote. Creators have no greater champion.

More evidence that generative AI competes with the work it's trained on, and the people behind that work. Illustrators, copywriters, graphic designers out of work. This is a key reason training data must be licensed, and gen AI training is not fair use theguardian.com/technology/2…