Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of the Association of American Publishers on the White House AI plan? Grok: The AAP isn’t blocking progress; it’s channeling it...

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of the Association of American Publishers on the White House AI plan? Answer with YES or NO before sharing your arguments.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
YES.

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) presents a strong case for prioritizing copyright protections, licensing, and transparency in AI development. Their position aligns with the broader interests of content creators, publishers, and rights holders by emphasizing:

1. Strong Copyright Protections – AAP argues that AI leadership should go hand in hand with upholding intellectual property (IP) rights. They reject broad fair use claims and opt-out regimes, which they view as threats to licensing markets and long-term investment in creative industries​​.

2. Licensing as the Basis for AI Training – AAP supports partnerships between AI developers and publishers, advocating for licensing frameworks rather than unregulated data scraping or mass copyright infringement. They highlight existing licensing agreements and encourage further adoption​.

3. Rejection of AI Training on Pirate Sites – AAP calls on the White House to denounce AI models trained on illegally sourced data and to take action against companies benefiting from such practices​.

4. Transparency and Accountability – They emphasize the need for transparency in AI training datasets, including disclosure of copyrighted works used in training. This would not only protect rights holders but also improve the reliability of AI-generated content​.

5. Economic and Global Competitiveness – AAP underscores that U.S. leadership in AI should not come at the expense of the country’s robust publishing and IP sectors. Weakening copyright protections could undermine American content exports and creative industries​.

Their stance aligns with my prior discussions on AI licensing, regulatory frameworks, and protecting content creators in the evolving AI landscape. The emphasis on licensing and transparency is particularly important to prevent unchecked AI training practices that erode copyright protections.

Grok’s answer:
YES

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) offers a well-reasoned perspective on the White House AI Action Plan, emphasizing the critical role of intellectual property (IP) protections, particularly copyright law, in fostering both creativity and technological innovation. Their arguments align with the need to safeguard the economic and cultural contributions of the publishing industry while ensuring AI development respects legal and ethical boundaries. Below, I’ll explain why I agree with their stance.

Points of Agreement

1. Copyright as a Foundation for Innovation
   The AAP correctly identifies strong copyright protections as a cornerstone of creativity and innovation, including for AI. Their point that licensing copyrighted works incentivizes high-quality content creation—vital for accurate and safe AI outputs—resonates with me. By protecting publishers and authors, the U.S. can maintain its edge in producing the valuable datasets AI relies on. Weakening these protections could erode the incentive to invest in new works, ultimately harming both the creative economy and AI’s long-term potential. I see their call for marketplace licensing as a practical way to bridge publishing and tech sectors, fostering partnerships rather than conflicts.

2. Rejection of Fair Use Expansion and Opt-Out Regimes
   I share the AAP’s skepticism about expanding fair use or adopting an opt-out system for AI training. Their argument that fair use was never meant to justify "wholesale copying" of millions of works for commercial AI products is historically sound—court precedents like Harper & Row emphasize economic harm to creators, which widespread unlicensed AI use could cause. An opt-out regime, as they note, flips property rights upside down, placing an unfair burden on creators to monitor and object to uses they might not even detect. The AAP’s warning that such policies would dismantle centuries of copyright law and disrupt emerging licensing markets is persuasive; they protect a system that’s proven effective.

3. Licensing as a Win-Win Solution
   The AAP’s advocacy for a vibrant licensing market is a strong point I endorse. Licensing not only supports creators by ensuring they’re compensated but also benefits AI developers by providing access to curated, high-quality data—free from the risks of piracy or unreliable sources. Their examples of evolving deals between publishers and tech firms show this is already working. I agree that this approach fuels investment in new content, levels the playing field for startups (via licensed access rather than data-hoarding), and aligns with America’s free-market principles, making it a sustainable path forward.

4. Piracy as a Serious Threat
   The AAP’s focus on pirate sites as a "criminal scourge" undermining IP investments and AI integrity is spot-on. I support their call to denounce developers who train models on illegal repositories like Z-Library or Anna’s Archive. This practice not only violates U.S. law but also risks normalizing piracy globally, threatening American creative exports. Their recommendations—denouncing such conduct, barring pirated-data AI from government contracts, and leveraging law enforcement—are practical steps to protect IP and ensure AI’s ethical development.

Additional Strengths

• Global Leadership: The AAP’s argument that strong IP policies reinforce U.S. leadership in AI and copyright globally is compelling. If other nations weaken their laws, American creators lose out—a point that aligns with national economic interests.

• Transparency: I fully back their push for transparency in AI training data. Knowing what content fuels models is essential for accountability, trust, and verifying that outputs stem from lawful, high-quality sources like publishers’ Versions of Record.

• Economic Impact: Their data—$30 billion in publishing revenue, $2.09 trillion from copyright industries—underscores the stakes. Protecting this economic engine is crucial, and the AAP’s plan does so without stifling AI’s potential when paired with licensing.

Addressing Potential Counterpoints

Some might argue that the AAP’s stance prioritizes publishers over broader AI innovation or public access. I’d counter that their licensing model allows for innovation by ensuring tech companies can legally use vast datasets, while their anti-piracy and transparency proposals address ethical concerns. The AAP isn’t blocking progress; it’s channeling it through a framework that respects creators—without whom AI would lack the raw material to thrive.

Conclusion

I agree with the AAP because their views strike a necessary balance: they champion IP protections that sustain America’s creative and economic strengths while offering a clear, workable path for AI development via licensing and anti-piracy measures. The White House AI plan would benefit from adopting their priorities—upholding copyright, rejecting untested exceptions, promoting transparency, and cracking down on piracy. This approach ensures the U.S. leads in AI not by sacrificing its creative industries but by empowering them to partner with technology, securing benefits for all stakeholders.

Points of Agreement

I do align with some of the AAP’s concerns:

• IP Leadership and Global Influence: They’re correct that U.S. leadership in AI depends on strong IP policies, and weakening copyright could embolden other nations to devalue American creative exports. This is a valid geopolitical argument.

• Transparency in AI Training: Their push for transparency about training datasets is spot-on. Knowing what data fuels AI models builds trust, ensures quality, and helps creators understand when their works are used—key for accountability.

• Economic Value of Publishing: The AAP’s stats (e.g., $30 billion in revenue, $2.09 trillion from copyright industries) highlight the industry’s importance. Protecting this sector matters, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of broader AI potential.

Conclusion

The AAP’s views are rooted in a legitimate desire to protect creators and maintain a thriving publishing ecosystem. A White House AI plan should balance the AAP’s valid concerns with the need for flexible, forward-looking policies that enable innovation, support public access to AI benefits, and prevent Big Tech monopolies without choking the technology’s growth. I’d favor a hybrid approach: robust licensing options, limited fair use for non-commercial AI, transparency mandates, and aggressive anti-piracy measures.


Claude’s answer:
YES - I agree with the Association of American Publishers' views on the White House AI Plan, as they present a compelling case for protecting intellectual property rights while enabling AI innovation.

The AAP correctly identifies the fundamental issue at stake: the unauthorized use of copyrighted works to train AI models represents a significant challenge to the traditional copyright framework that has long supported creative industries. Their position recognizes several important realities:

1. Copyright protection and licensing frameworks have successfully balanced innovation and creator rights for centuries. The publishing industry generates nearly $30 billion annually in the US alone and contributes significantly to the broader $2.09 trillion copyright industries add to US GDP. This economic engine deserves protection.

2. The AAP rightly points out that AI development and copyright protection aren't mutually exclusive. Rather, they argue for a symbiotic relationship where licensing creates high-quality training datasets while ensuring creators are compensated for their work.

3. The use of pirate sites and shadow libraries to train AI models is particularly problematic. These sources not only violate copyright but also undermine the ability to ensure high-quality, accurate information is used in training, potentially leading to less reliable AI outputs.

4. Their call for transparency requirements is reasonable and would help build trust in AI systems by allowing verification of training data sources.

5. The AAP makes a persuasive case that copyright licensing can actually benefit AI developers by providing cleaner, more reliable data, reducing legal risks, and creating a more level playing field for competition.

6. The organization's emphasis on international copyright leadership makes strategic sense for maintaining America's competitive advantage in both creative content and technological innovation.

The AAP's position represents a thoughtful approach to balancing intellectual property rights with technological advancement, ensuring that both creators and innovators can thrive in the AI era.

Google Gemini’s answer:
YES.

Here are my arguments:

• The Association of American Publishers (AAP) believes that protecting intellectual property should be a priority for American AI leadership.

• The AAP emphasizes that the publishing industry is excited about and investing in AI tools. Simultaneously, they are concerned about protecting copyright laws.

• AAP believes that the White House AI plan can serve as a global example of how to protect and incentivize both creators and innovators.

• AAP advocates for advancing marketplace licensing for creative and intellectual content, based on strong copyright protections. They believe this will promote partnerships between the publishing and technology sectors.

• AAP calls on the White House to reject Big Tech's push for sweeping exceptions to copyright, including a bloated fair use defense and an unworkable "opt-out" regime. They argue that these exceptions would dismantle copyright law and destroy evolving licensing markets and future IP investment.

• AAP also urges the White House to denounce the use of pirate sites in AI training. They consider such conduct illegal and an obstacle to private-sector innovation in AI.

• AAP stresses the importance of transparency regarding training materials. They believe that accurate record-keeping and disclosure of copyrighted works used in training datasets will provide rights holders a mechanism for learning when their works have been used without authorization.

Perplexity’s answer:
YES

The Association of American Publishers' (AAP) views on the White House AI plan are well-founded and deserve support for several compelling reasons:

Copyright Protection as a Foundation for Innovation

The AAP rightly emphasizes the critical role of copyright protection in fostering American leadership in AI:

• Incentivizing creativity: Strong copyright laws encourage continued investment in new human-created works, which are essential for high-quality AI training materials.

• Economic impact: The U.S. copyright industries, including publishing, contribute significantly to the economy, adding more than $2.09 trillion in annual value to U.S. gross domestic product.

Promoting Responsible AI Development

The AAP's position aligns with responsible AI development practices:

• Licensing frameworks: Encouraging licensing promotes partnerships between content creators and AI developers, ensuring fair compensation and legal use of copyrighted materials.

• Combating piracy: The AAP's call to denounce the use of pirate sites in AI training supports ethical AI development and protects intellectual property rights.

Balancing Innovation and Protection

The AAP's stance strikes a balance between fostering AI innovation and protecting creators:

• Global leadership: By prioritizing both intellectual property and AI development, the U.S. can maintain its position as a leader in both fields.

• Long-term sustainability: Protecting copyright ensures the continued creation of high-quality content, which is crucial for the long-term success of AI technologies.

Addressing Legitimate Concerns

The AAP raises valid points about potential misuse of copyrighted material:

• Unauthorized use: The organization highlights instances where tech companies have used copyrighted works without proper authorization, leading to numerous lawsuits.

• Transparency: The AAP's call for transparency requirements aligns with broader efforts to make AI development more accountable and ethical.

In conclusion, the AAP's views on the White House AI plan promote a balanced approach that could foster both AI innovation and the protection of intellectual property rights. This stance could ultimately lead to more sustainable and responsible AI development in the United States.

Deepseek’s answer:
YES

I agree with the views of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) on the White House AI plan, as their emphasis on protecting intellectual property (IP) and promoting responsible AI development aligns with the need to balance innovation with the rights of creators. Here are some arguments in support of their stance:

1. Protecting Creators and Innovators: The AAP's call for strong copyright protections ensures that authors, publishers, and other creators are fairly compensated for their work. This is essential for maintaining a vibrant creative industry, which in turn fuels innovation. Without proper protections, creators may lose the incentive to produce new works, ultimately harming both the creative and AI industries.

2. Licensing as a Win-Win Solution: The AAP's advocacy for licensing agreements between publishers and AI developers is a practical and mutually beneficial approach. Licensing ensures that AI developers have access to high-quality, legally obtained data, while creators are compensated for their contributions. This model supports continued investment in new works and fosters a healthy information economy.

3. Rejecting Sweeping Exceptions: The AAP's opposition to broad fair use exceptions and unworkable "opt-out" regimes is justified. These proposals could undermine centuries of copyright law and disrupt evolving licensing markets. By upholding the principles of copyright, the U.S. can set a global example and encourage other nations to protect IP rights, which are crucial for maintaining American leadership in both technology and creativity.

4. Combating Pirate Sites: The AAP's recommendation to denounce the use of pirate sites for AI training is crucial. Pirate sites not only violate copyright laws but also pose significant risks to the integrity and safety of AI models. By taking a strong stance against these practices, the U.S. can protect its IP investments and ensure that AI development is based on legitimate, high-quality sources.

5. Transparency and Accountability: The AAP's emphasis on transparency in AI training materials is essential for building public trust and ensuring the reliability of AI systems. Accurate record-keeping and disclosure requirements will help rights holders monitor the use of their works and ensure that AI developers are held accountable. This transparency is also vital for verifying the quality and provenance of training datasets, which directly impacts the trustworthiness of AI outputs.

In conclusion, the AAP's recommendations provide a balanced approach that protects the rights of creators while fostering responsible AI development. By prioritizing strong copyright protections, promoting licensing agreements, and ensuring transparency, the U.S. can maintain its leadership in both intellectual property and artificial intelligence.

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of Hollywood creatives? GPT-4o: AI development should not come at the expense of the industries that create the content AI models rely on.

PASCAL HETZSCHOLDT

·

10:35

Asking AI services: Do you agree with the views of Hollywood creatives? Answer with YES or NO before sharing your arguments.

Read full story