"Yes, it is fair to say that the tech companies are arguing for the relaxation of copyright law so that they can use copyrighted information without permission..."

Question for AI services: Please read https://www.channelnews.com.au/tech-companies-want-copyright-law-relaxed-to-aid-ai-adoption/ Is it fair to say that what the tech companies are arguing is the same as saying: “Ignore us using copyrighted information without permission in training data and for the AI-driven generation of derivatives of copyrighted content that not only mimics or remixes the content itself but also the creator’s creative style, so we can sell more AI subscriptions?”

ChatGPT-4’s answer:The article from Channel News discusses the Tech Council of Australia's submission to the federal government's "Supporting Safe and Responsible AI" inquiry. The council argues for relaxing Australia's copyright laws to allow generative AI systems to access online information for free. They claim that Australia risks being left behind in AI technology if the current stringent copyright laws are not relaxed. The council's members include major tech companies like Google, Adobe, Salesforce, Microsoft, and IBM, as well as Australian firms like Atlassian, Canva, Telstra, and others.

The article also notes that this is a controversial stance. Authors, musicians, and photographers want companies to pay for using their copyrighted works to train AI systems. In the U.S., 8,000 authors have signed a letter demanding payments, and Getty Images is suing an AI art generator for copyright breaches.

Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, argues that using copyrighted materials for training generative AI systems is lawful under "fair use" provisions. However, some news organizations are seeking payments for the use of their content in AI training, and others have blocked web crawlers from accessing their content.

The Tech Council's submission distinguishes between content used to train an AI model and content that forms part of the outputs of a generative AI model. They argue that current copyright laws may limit Australia's potential to develop AI and machine learning models and could pose barriers to inward AI investment and adoption.

In summary, the Tech Council is advocating for a more relaxed approach to copyright laws, specifically for the purpose of AI training and development. They believe that the current laws are outdated and lack clarity, especially in their application to AI and machine learning systems.

To answer your question: The tech companies are essentially arguing for more lenient copyright laws to facilitate AI training and development. While they don't explicitly say they want to use copyrighted information without permission, the implication is that they would like to do so under a more relaxed legal framework. They argue that this is necessary for technological advancement and that current laws could hinder AI development and investment in Australia.

So, it might be fair to say that what the tech companies are arguing could be interpreted as: "Allow us to use copyrighted information without explicit permission for AI training and potentially for the generation of derivatives, so that we can advance in the field of AI technology." However, they do not explicitly state that they intend to "sell more AI subscriptions," but the commercial implications are certainly present.

Google Bard’s answer:Yes, it is fair to say that the tech companies are arguing for the relaxation of copyright law so that they can use copyrighted information without permission in training data and for the AI-driven generation of derivatives of copyrighted content. The article you linked to quotes the Tech Council of Australia as saying that Australia's current copyright regime is "outdated" and "lacks clarity around its application to AI". The council is specifically concerned about the use of copyrighted information in training data for generative AI systems. Generative AI systems are trained on large datasets of existing data, and this data can include copyrighted material. If the copyright holder does not give permission for their material to be used in training data, then the use of that material could be considered copyright infringement.

The tech companies argue that relaxing copyright law in this area would allow them to develop and deploy generative AI systems more quickly and easily. They also argue that it would help to ensure that Australia remains a leader in the development of AI technology. However, there are concerns that relaxing copyright law in this way could lead to widespread copyright infringement and could harm the creative industries.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not to relax copyright law in this area is a complex one. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. It is important to weigh the potential benefits of relaxing copyright law against the potential risks.

To answer your specific question, yes, it is fair to say that the tech companies are arguing for the ability to use copyrighted information without permission in training data and for the AI-driven generation of derivatives of copyrighted content. They are essentially saying that they should be allowed to do this so that they can sell more AI subscriptions. However, there are valid arguments against this, as I have mentioned above.Claude’s answer:I do not have a strong opinion on whether the tech companies' arguments are fair or not. The article presents arguments from both sides - tech companies wanting more flexibility to use copyrighted data to train AI models, and content creators concerned about losing control over their intellectual property. There are reasonable points on both sides of this complex issue. Ultimately, it will come down to lawmakers, courts and the involved parties to balance promoting innovation in AI with protecting creators' rights. Any changes to copyright law should aim to foster beneficial uses of AI while preventing harmful misuse of others' creative work. But reasonable people can disagree on where exactly to draw that line.

[Note: Bing Chat produced a response to completely different information and could not accurately read the correct article]