I recently heard a local EU politician on the radio trying to convince the listeners "things made with AI should be inherently non copyrightable, because they l

I recently heard a local EU politician on the radio trying to convince the listeners "things made with AI should be inherently non copyrightable, because they lack human creative labour". I wish I could tell him there is this thing called photography where all a human does is presses a button and copyrightable artefacts are created by capturing how the world looks. For example a landscape that human had no influence over creating! Surely this "non copyrightability" should apply to photography too. /sarcasm AI is just a tool. You can make slop or you can make beautiful art. Is it fair to Picasso's copyright holder that all his paintings were used for training and you can prompt "this in style of Picasso"? No, especially if the company that trained the LLM makes money on it. But there is a technical solution. Simply during training record who owns what training data and record how much influence on each weight this training run had. Then during inference it could be recorded if the weights that trained on Picasso's stuff activated or not. And if someone pays for inference the original owner of tgat data should get a cut. Maybe even blockchain tech could be used for this... Imagine the hype! AI and crypto together!