Sinéad Gibney: AI is annihilating artists' livelihoods

The work is not just the work, it's the worker. That's a quote from author Robin Sloane which I think is really apt to tonight's discussion and I want to also thank Deputy O'Snuddig for bringing forward this motion and for his Sinn Féin colleagues and for all of the work done for artists here in Ireland to protect what is such a treasure within our society. I want to thank also those organisations who are listed in the motion, the collectives, union organisations, all of whom fight tooth and nail to make sure that artists can survive in a society which essentially, let's name it, just does not reward art. Like it is an anomaly in our society that we remunerate certain pursuits in life and we don't remunerate others. We pay people to pursue corporate goals and aims but we don't pay people to pursue art and yet we all consume art, we all value art. It is just that which enriches our society more than anything else. So for me I think it's important to name all of that because this is the context into which AI has now come and has not just disrupted but completely annihilated the ability for artists to continue to make a viable living in the pursuit of their art and their craft. And I want to call out a few other kind of I suppose truths before I get into some of the specifics around this debate here and I'm glad to hear that the government isn't opposing this motion, I'm glad to hear that essentially this can be the start of a conversation that we need to have here in the Dáil about how AI is impacting on artists. In the AI committee we haven't yet got to our module on the creative industries and how AI intersects with it and I look forward to that happening hopefully by the end of this year or perhaps early next year because AI is coming at us from all directions and you and I have talked a lot about it Minister in terms of the climate impacts, the impact on labour displacement, the impact on algorithmic decision making in the public sector, the case for discrimination, so many ways in which AI is disrupting our lives and reaching deep deep deep into every life of every citizen here on the globe and this one is absolutely crucial. I mean you talked a good bit in your contribution Minister about the AI Act and I think it's important to call out that part of this motion calls for adequate legislation, adequate regulations and measures to simply deal with this and I have not been kind of made confident by the way the AI Bill was handled in the last few weeks that this is something that is being done well by this government. Government spokespeople all talk about how we are world leaders in innovation of AI, how we're world leaders in governance of AI, that is just not a true fact as far as I'm concerned, we are not there yet but we have the opportunity to do so, we have the opportunity to actually hold big tech accountable because I'm going to get through a few points but ultimately that's where we get to. It is big tech who are making money, it's the systems who control how music is delivered to our ears that are making money and that's where we need to tackle this and I'm going to get into how I think we need to be a little less focused on rights holders as a result of it because that's really part of it for me is that although the legislation and the measures that you've talked about a lot around the copyright part of this discussion is being looked at at EU level, again EU has chosen to adopt a very light-touched regulatory approach to AI despite what government ministers will say, so unfortunately again I just simply do not have faith in that model but I believe we need to move that focus away from rights holders and instead look at those who control the system and the benefit that they currently get from that as opposed to artists. I also want to talk a little bit about how the undermining of the skill of artistry and allowing theft of material will ultimately lead to the cessation of the creation of art, like that's the direction of travel that we're going in unless we tackle this and I wanted to speak briefly about how Irish music is particularly vulnerable with all of this and I'm going to arrive then back at the business model which I believe is the issue that we just don't tackle head-on and this government certainly doesn't tackle head-on. But starting about the point around rights holders and I think really what I'm trying to say here is while I think that is a crucial part of this debate, we're too focused on copyright and those who hold rights to their own creations because we need to acknowledge the fact that those services who provide music to music lovers, they sit upon troves of music data that they can use to train AI and to profit from it. They have a potential interest in AI music becoming more popular and accepted because it forces musicians to compete and perhaps ultimately accept worse royalty payments in the long term, like that's a truth that we need to acknowledge. As long as they are in control, they are motivated to essentially elevate AI-generated music above artist-created music because they are a profit-driven entity and that's going to be cheaper to them. So if low effort AI audio slop is compensated equally to human songcraft, songwriters will ultimately over time be squeezed out and new songwriters whose copyright is not used in training data and who aren't always represented by some of the organizations I've mentioned, they will struggle to get a foothold and ultimately I think that's where we need to understand the difficulty with the copyright model being the sole focus because it will benefit those established artists, some of those who are in the gallery today, the artists that we all know and love, where it's the artists who are starting now, not those who started 10 years ago, who are then going to be even further disadvantaged because over time those platforms will be unable to resist that AI music that they helped make will be cheaper for them. And we need to look at questions like, for example, can AI music be copyrightable because that is not settled as it stands and we will see that evolve over time. And I want to acknowledge that there is one platform who is tackling this and that's Tidal. So from tomorrow, Tidal, which is a music streaming platform, will no longer pay royalties to 100% generated AI music. And there's no reason why Apple and Spotify and YouTube and everybody else shouldn't be following suit, but they won't. We have to legislate for them to do that and that's the kind of legislation that we can lead in this country. We don't have to wait for Europe, we can do it and we can have a greater impact as a result of it. And it is those systems who are currently benefiting rather than the artists. It's those who control the system where this work is published or who even scrape it from the internet to feed those AI models. They have a near monopoly when it comes to controlling who sees what art and who need to see a commensurate responsibility imposed on them to treat creators fairly, to protect art and to protect artists. Because AI slop is not something which creates new things from nothing. Its creations are always limited by the input, but that is going unrecognized, unrewarded, and crucially unpaid. And allowing slop and the theft of art to go unmitigated will ultimately lead to no art being made. These generative AI models, they can't create something from nothing. They're all dependent on raw material. They're incapable of creativity. So if artists can't survive, these models will also eventually run out of art to steal. And we won't just face the dire situation we're currently in, but will be even worse off. And I think Deputy O'Snuddig did a really comprehensive outline of exactly the depth and breadth of that theft that is currently happening in his opening comments. And similarly, undermining the skills needed to create and pushing, will push those creators ultimately out of existence. Because creating music, visual art, any art is skilled work. It takes decades of people honing their craft, and they do it because of the passion to do it, not because, as I said, there is any monetary gain within it. Because much of it is unpaid or low paid. But that creates inherent value to our lives. And this tech is minimizing what little money that artists can currently make. And even when the owners of this tech have not monetized it, it still is undermining the years of investment and graft of artists to create something that we all benefit from. I want to speak specifically to Irish art, which I believe is particularly under attack, because Irish music is readily recognizable around the world, and therefore very vulnerable to imitation. So if you go to YouTube right now and search for Irish Cirque music, you'll see a lot of AI slop in the results. So if you search for that term, for example, Irish folk music, you'll get a channel called The Spirit of the Tavern. Within that, you'll find a composition, if you like, called Irish Pub Songs. That video has had four times the views in the six-month period as Lancombe's most recent single. That's terrifying to me, because Lancombe is creating beautiful, beautiful art. This stuff is synthetic, paddywhackery nonsense, with just nonsense lyrics and everything in it. And that's what we're seeing, that Irish artists in particular are vulnerable to this, and we need to make sure that we protect them. But ultimately, where we come back to is the fact that these platforms and big tech have developed a business model which is parasitic. Essentially, it's this launch and iterate, move fast and break things. In this case, what they're doing is saying that they will capture the market now and then monetize later. That's what's happening. They're not making the money now, but they know that unless they control it, they won't be able to make money in time. It's the same business model, it's the same business mindset that has made us the user, or the user the product, in the case of social media platforms, and why we are on this road to enshitification, as people talk about the internet. Because if nothing is done, we will ultimately leave us with a powerful monopoly, just as we've seen in other areas, that we won't be able to unpick. And unfortunately, this is simply where we're getting to all the time with big tech. And what I believe is that this government does not yet have the political will to tackle that, to essentially hold big tech accountable, to say to them that this is enough, that the harms being wrought on society is enough, and we have to take control back. I was helped today in preparing for this speech by a friend of mine, Shane Cullity is his name, he's an artist called WinterAid, and I just simply wanted to read out one of his lyrics to finish my speech tonight, because this is what we're trying to protect when we do this. This is a song called The Wisp Sings, which I encourage everyone to listen to after. Let me sleep, I am tired of my grief, and I would like you to love me, to love me, to love me, this is the night when these woods sigh, come with me, there are people who cannot speak without smiling, they would take me from your hand, or they would try, they would try, this is the murmur of the land, this is the sound of love's marching band, and how they hold you like a gun, and how I sing you like a song I heard when I was young, and buried for a night like this, buried for a night like this. Thank you.