Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, April to twenty twenty six. We're all in
Speaker 1: this together. Sound familiar. Anthony Albanezi made and addressed to
Speaker 1: the nation asking everyone to play their part in responding
Speaker 1: to the economic crisis created by war in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: These are uncertain times, but I'm absolutely certain of this.
Speaker 2: We will deal with these global challenges the Australian way,
Speaker 2: working together and looking after each other as we always have.
Speaker 1: All our analysis of that is live right now at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au. Big AI wants Australia's
Speaker 1: creativity for free. The artificial intelligence giant Anthropic, which makes
Speaker 1: the chatbot Claude, has signed an agreement with the Albanezy
Speaker 1: government about AI safety and about potentially building giant data
Speaker 1: centers here. But there's a catch. Anthropic and other AI
Speaker 1: companies want to be allowed to hoover up all Australia's
Speaker 1: creative works for free. That's books, music, journalism, architecture, dance,
Speaker 1: indigenous cultural knowledge art. It's even triggered a fight inside
Speaker 1: the government today. What's fair when it comes to AI?
Speaker 1: James Madden is the Australian's media editor and James Ware
Speaker 1: here today to talk about an issue that seems quite
Speaker 1: complicated but I think is actually very simple. Dario Amiday,
Speaker 1: who's one of the world's most powerful AI billionaires, is
Speaker 1: here in Australia lobbying federal politicians.
Speaker 3: What does he want?
Speaker 4: What he wants, Claire, is basically access to the creative
Speaker 4: content owned by Australian artists, musicians, journalists, authors, screenwriters and
Speaker 4: news media outlets. And the reason he wants that content
Speaker 4: is so he can fuel his AI engines, which is
Speaker 4: obviously at the core of anthropics business model.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So around the world, AI companies are training their
Speaker 1: models to understand society so that they can give you
Speaker 1: and me good answers when we ask them questions. I
Speaker 1: hear one of the senior executive of Universal Music describing
Speaker 1: this the other day. A lot of creative companies, like
Speaker 1: music labels, are looking at making deals with AI companies
Speaker 1: so that the R companies can use the copyright of
Speaker 1: their artists. He used the example of Billie Eilish, he
Speaker 1: was signed to one of Universal's labels, and he said
Speaker 1: the potential is amazing. Let's say it's a cloudy, rainy afternoon,
Speaker 1: you're going to go for a half an hour run.
Speaker 1: You're a big Billie Eilish fan, but there's nothing really
Speaker 1: in her catalog that quite suits the mood or the
Speaker 1: time that you want. And you want a pretty neat
Speaker 1: playlist that you don't have to do much too. You
Speaker 1: could interact with an AI that has some and to
Speaker 1: deal with Billie Eilish and is paying her to create
Speaker 1: a playlist for you that's curated just for you. It's
Speaker 1: Billy Eilish music. She hasn't actually created it, but she
Speaker 1: has licensed the AI to do it for her. You
Speaker 1: get this perfect half an hour moody soundtrack. So that's
Speaker 1: a really positive use of AI, right, And that's the
Speaker 1: way that deals could be made and are being made already.
Speaker 1: I don't think Billy Eilish has signed one herself, and
Speaker 1: so I thought I'd test that a little bit. What's
Speaker 1: the flip side of that? And are they already doing
Speaker 1: it anyway without Billie Eilish's permission. So I asked chat,
Speaker 1: GBT and Google's Gemini to tell me what the big
Speaker 1: themes are in Billie Eilish's music. I've asked our producer
Speaker 1: Christian Amio to read me what they said. What was
Speaker 1: the answer from chat GBT Chrissy.
Speaker 5: So chat GBT came back and said that Billie Eilish's
Speaker 5: known for weaving a handful of distinct emotional and conceptual
Speaker 5: themes through her music. They include mental health and inner struggles, darkness,
Speaker 5: fear and the macabre love, heartbreak and toxic relationships, identity
Speaker 5: and self image, fame in its downsides, and there is
Speaker 5: actually seven quite distinct themes given here by chat GPT.
Speaker 1: It gave me a little emoji for each of those two, which.
Speaker 5: Did just in case you are unsure as to what
Speaker 5: the flame emoji should be alongside.
Speaker 1: And that took about three or four seconds. So then
Speaker 1: I thought, okay, what if I'm a lipstick designer, but
Speaker 1: I want to use Billie eilish kind of style themes
Speaker 1: for my new lipstick collection. So I asked chat gpt
Speaker 1: to give me some Billie Eilish inspired lipstick names for
Speaker 1: my six lipsticks in my collection, and here's what it
Speaker 1: gave me. So the one that jumped out to me
Speaker 1: was called Ocean Eyes Glow because Ocean Eyes is one
Speaker 1: of Billie Eilish's best known songs. It is arguably the
Speaker 1: song that launched her onto the global stage.
Speaker 5: There's also Quite Chaos, which chat GBT suggests captures her
Speaker 5: inner conflict, themes ideal for a cool move or a
Speaker 5: gray toned pink. There's Faded Dream, which is a soft,
Speaker 5: melancholic tone, great for a muted nude or dusty row.
Speaker 1: So there we go. I know that chat GPT is
Speaker 1: not paying Billie Eilish anything, it hasn't come to a
Speaker 1: licensing agreement with her, and yet it is able to
Speaker 1: give me a business plan for my fictional lipstick empire.
Speaker 1: That for me is an example of how badly this
Speaker 1: can go wrong and how they're already using creative works
Speaker 1: to power their engines. What's the risky for Australian artists.
Speaker 4: Well, the risk for Australian artists is basically that they
Speaker 4: will lose ownership of what is theirs. That is their content,
Speaker 4: They own it, that's their lifeblud. So for them to
Speaker 4: have that stolen from under their nose should the AAI
Speaker 4: companies wish come to pass, would have potentially catastrophic consequences
Speaker 4: for the news industry, the music industry, the screenwriting industry,
Speaker 4: individuals and news companies as a whole.
Speaker 1: So they're clearly already doing it. And Dario Amiday, the
Speaker 1: CEO of Anthropic, is here ostensibly to talk about AI safety,
Speaker 1: about helping Australia develop a safe protocol, something that Anthropic
Speaker 1: talks a lot about. Also to investigate the potential for
Speaker 1: giant data centers to be built here. Australia already has
Speaker 1: more than one hundred data centers. They consume about as
Speaker 1: much electricity as one hundred thousand homes according to the
Speaker 1: International Energy Agency, So they're big investments that the AI
Speaker 1: companies would say are helping the economy grow. But there's
Speaker 1: a caveat right. What do the AI companies want in
Speaker 1: return for bringing their investment here?
Speaker 4: Well, what they want is an easing of Australia's copyright laws.
Speaker 4: And as it stands, the Australian government has held firm
Speaker 4: on protecting our copyright laws. And the reason why the
Speaker 4: AO companies want these laws to be eased is so
Speaker 4: they can effectively mine creative content to train their machines.
Speaker 1: Here's Dario Amiday on stage in Canberra on Wednesday.
Speaker 3: I do think rights orders how legitimate cleans here and
Speaker 3: you know, we're you know, we're kind of more here
Speaker 3: to talk about. You know, how can we how can
Speaker 3: we arrive at an arrangement that works for everyone and
Speaker 3: you know, leave everyone better off. Like I would generalize
Speaker 3: to the point of, if we're able to generate voutepenopment
Speaker 3: growth with AI, you know, it's it's a standard you know,
Speaker 3: economic growth thing, making the pie figure, and then there's
Speaker 3: more that we can get to everyone.
Speaker 4: It's a bit of a charm offensive that Daria has
Speaker 4: been undertaken is in Cambra to meet with the Treasurer
Speaker 4: and potentially the Prime Minister as well. It's not a
Speaker 4: memorandum of understanding with the government. It doesn't mean much
Speaker 4: in and of itself at this point, but what it
Speaker 4: does to potentially is give Anthropic a foot in the
Speaker 4: door of Australia. At the moment they're saying we'd like
Speaker 4: to engage in health research, assist with the agricultural industry,
Speaker 4: financial services, this is a mask. What they want is
Speaker 4: the content, the creative content of Australian artists, because that
Speaker 4: is their business model. That is what feeds and fattens
Speaker 4: their AI training models, and that is how they make
Speaker 4: their profits.
Speaker 1: So companies, including News Corp Australia, which publishes The Australian.
Speaker 1: I've strongly opposed to this, and so are the bodies
Speaker 1: representing musicians and writers and screenwriters and so on and architects.
Speaker 1: They say there's nothing wrong with the copyright laws. Now,
Speaker 1: let's say, James, you had written a book about the
Speaker 1: Man from Snow River. I loved your book so much
Speaker 1: that I wanted to create a range of jackets inspired
Speaker 1: by your book. Presently, under the copyright law, I would
Speaker 1: have to come to a licensing agreement with you. Then
Speaker 1: I could market it as the James Madden Man from
Speaker 1: Snow River Jacket Collection. It's a good idea. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should actually do this. Yeah, they don't want to have
Speaker 1: to do that. They don't want to have to pay
Speaker 1: or agree with creators about what their works would be
Speaker 1: used for. So they could hoover it up and then
Speaker 1: spit it out again, like in ellipstick collection or a
Speaker 1: jacket collection, and you would have no say whatsoever. And
Speaker 1: Toropic is worth five hundred and fifty billion dollars, these
Speaker 1: other companies are worth billions. Why would they try to
Speaker 1: object to paying what is going to be a relatively
Speaker 1: small amount in copyright agreements, we'd say news publishers or artists.
Speaker 4: Countries like Australia, for example, they're not saying AI companies
Speaker 4: be gone, you have no business here. In fact, quite
Speaker 4: the opposite country, like Australia, we're open for business. You'll
Speaker 4: find the music industry and the news industry and the
Speaker 4: screenwriting industry all saying the same thing. Please, let's engage.
Speaker 4: Let's sit down in good faith and have good faith negotiations.
Speaker 4: Because AI is here to stay and it's a reality.
Speaker 4: I don't think anyone's overlooking that fact. The issue in
Speaker 4: terms of recompense is that unless licensing deals are honored
Speaker 4: and struck, then it's almost impossible to clawback content and
Speaker 4: copyright that has been stolen. Once it's stopped, it's gone.
Speaker 4: It's out there, it's digested by the wider world, and
Speaker 4: there's no way of making a fair claim back.
Speaker 1: Coming up. Are the AI giants already getting away with it? Chrissy.
Speaker 1: Every day you and I use a couple of AI
Speaker 1: tools as a kind of enthusiastic assistant. You know, that's
Speaker 1: the way we've been trained to use them here at
Speaker 1: News Corp. It's like use them as your annoying but
Speaker 1: enthusiastic assistant. They'll give you too much, and they'll give
Speaker 1: you the wrong things and keep prompting them so that
Speaker 1: they can actually help you do your work. We don't
Speaker 1: ever use them to write something that we actually publish.
Speaker 1: So every day we ask Google's Gemini to think of
Speaker 1: a couple of episode titles for us. What's your take
Speaker 1: on what it gives back to us?
Speaker 5: I find, by and large, it tends to veer into
Speaker 5: cliche and flattery. More often than not. It will start
Speaker 5: by giving you a spiel about how great your script is,
Speaker 5: and it's like, well, thank you, bet I already knew that.
Speaker 5: It will generate a lot of things that could be
Speaker 5: the title of an episode of any podcast, and any
Speaker 5: one of our competitors for that matter.
Speaker 1: It looks to me like it's trained on the New
Speaker 1: York Times and the Washington Post, and it's got that
Speaker 1: style of headline writing, which is very it's a bit pompous.
Speaker 1: You know, there's usually ten words, there's a semi colon
Speaker 1: in the middle somewhere. We ask Google's Gemini to come
Speaker 1: up with a title for this episode. Do you want
Speaker 1: to read us some of the options that it came back.
Speaker 5: With the content collapse. Is AI digestion killing original creation?
Speaker 5: Question mark code versus canvas? The existential threat to the
Speaker 5: creative class.
Speaker 1: There's a colon in the middle of all these heads.
Speaker 5: There is Yes, there is no singular sentence anywhere here?
Speaker 5: Whose art is it? Anyway? AI copyright and the death
Speaker 5: of the author and stolen sentences? How AI is stripping
Speaker 5: news rooms bear So I don't know if there's something
Speaker 5: you haven't told us there, but that's somewhat concerning for me.
Speaker 1: That's clearly been trained on American newspapers. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's as a result of a licensing deal that I
Speaker 1: would have to pay if I decided to start using
Speaker 1: New York Times headlines in my work. So they're already
Speaker 1: getting away with it. Is it too late?
Speaker 4: Well, I hope not. But the scales are tipping in
Speaker 4: favor of AI companies because it is hard to regulate.
Speaker 4: This is hard. There's a lot out there on the
Speaker 4: Internet already on the so called open web, that can
Speaker 4: be mined by these AI companies, but they want it all.
Speaker 4: The reason they wanted all is because it's best for
Speaker 4: their models. But is it too late.
Speaker 1: No, No, there's clearly a split within the government. Michelle Roland,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General, gave a very rousing speech last week
Speaker 1: in which she said that the Government is never going
Speaker 1: to capitulate to a request to exempt these works from
Speaker 1: copyright for text and data mining, which is what the
Speaker 1: AI companies want. But there are other ministers like Andrew Charlton,
Speaker 1: who's the Assistant Minister responsible for the Digital Economy. He's
Speaker 1: clearly much more interested in going AI's way right.
Speaker 4: Look, he's been quite vocal in championing the positives of
Speaker 4: data centers AI data centers in Australia, for example. But
Speaker 4: I suppose where it gets murky for mister Charlton and
Speaker 4: others is that it's one thing to promote data centers,
Speaker 4: but if you're compromising the copyright of your artists and
Speaker 4: your journalists and your musicians, then it's almost like once
Speaker 4: the genie is out of the bottle, it's gone.
Speaker 1: James Madden, thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 1: James Madden is The Australian's Media editor. You can read
Speaker 1: all our journalism, produced by real people right now at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au