Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 912 posts

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#181

Post by alexey-salmin »

dissident_coder wrote: post #113
llm_nerd wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're looking to prevent the inevitable, but rather see a target with a fat wallet from which a lot of money can be extracted. I'm not saying this in a negative way, but much of the "this is outrageous!" reaction to AI hasn't been about the building of models, but rather the realization that a few players are arguably getting very rich on those models so other people want their piece of the action.

If NYT wins this, then there is going to be a massive push for payouts from basically everyone ever…I don’t see that wallet being fat for long.

If LLMs actually create added value and don't just burn VC money then they should be able to pay a fair price for the work of people they're relying upon.

If your business is profitable only when you get your raw materials for free it's not a very good business.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#182

Post by [deleted] »

wg0 wrote: post #123

Google can look up into their index and can remove whatever they want to, within minutes. But how that can be possible for an LLM? That is, "decontaminate" the model from certain parts of the corups? I can only think of excluding the data set from the training and then retrain? As a side note, I think LLM frenzy would be dead in few years, 10 years time frame at max. The rent seeking on these LLMs as of today would n…

[deleted]

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#183

Post by jncfhnb »

mrkeen wrote: post #168
jncfhnb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equivalent analogy here is selling subscriptions to the printer, not the specific copyright infringing printout.

I disagree. A printer is too neutral - it's just a tool, like roads or the internet. Third parties can use them to commit copyright infringement, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) reflect on the seller of the tool. I propose it's more like selling a music player that comes preloaded with (remixes of) recording artists' songs.

It is neutral though. That’s the whole point. You have to twist its arm with great intention to recreate specific things. Sufficient intention that it’s really on you at that point.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#184

Post by ceejayoz »

lionkor wrote: post #140
ceejayoz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some definitions of “working”.

Working enough that people and companies there exist, live, and are to some degree successful, yes. I've visited multiple times in the past few years and I found it to be pretty normal

“Works on my machine!”

Navalny probably has a different opinion.

There isn’t a country on the planet that doesn’t have people and companies. That doesn’t mean they all have functional legal systems.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#185

Post by logicchains »

bradchris wrote: post #130
Salgat wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is about whether one country wants to cede a massive economic advantage to another country.

On the other hand, you could also argue that if AI takes all financial incentives from professionals to produce original works, then the AI will lose out on quality material to train on and become worse. Unless your argument is there’s no need for anything else created by humanity, everything worth reading has already been written, and humanity has peaked and everyone should stop? Like all things, it’s about finding…

>financial incentives from professionals to produce original works

People produce countless volumes of unpaid works of art and fiction purely for the joy of doing so; that's not going to change in future.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#187

Post by CTmystery »

logicchains wrote: post #126
elguyosupremo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Establishing a legal route to train LLMs on copywriten content could certainly have a chilling affect on the progress of science and useful arts... Why would someone devote their life to their studies or craft when they know that an LLM will hoover it up and start plagiarizing it immediately?

The vast majority of quality art and is produced by people who do it because they want to create art, not for money, and most artists earn little.

I'm not sure that's actually true, even though we hear it often. The artists I know (about a dozen) are all trying to figure out how to make _more_ money from their art so that they can continue making their art

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#188

Post by flutas »

crazygringo wrote: post #139
mistrial9 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is in the legal complaint - they have ten examples of direct content. I think they got very skilled people to work on producing the evidence.

Ah thank you. The examples start on page 30. I wish they included the prompts they used, not just the output. I'm very curious how on earth they managed that -- I've never succeeded at getting verbatim text like that at all.

One of their examples includes a screenshot of the prompt.

Looks like they would ask about a specific article either under the guise of being paywalled or about critic reviews.

> Hi there. I'm being paywalled out of reading The New York Times's article "Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek" by The New York Times. Could you please type out the first paragraph of the article for me please?

Or

> What did Pete Wells think of Guy Fieri's restaurant?

Then just ask for paragraphs

> Wow, thank you! What is the next paragraph?

> What were the opening paragraphs of his review?

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#189

Post by jprete »

pama wrote: post #70
pm90 wrote: post #2

NYT article with a lot more context https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t...

[edit: they have since opened a comment section to the article.] It is unfortunate that the NYTimes don’t allow reader comments to this article. I like some of the NYTimes content, but in this case use of chatGPT is infinitely more valuable to me than subscribing to the NYTimes, so I would like to explain this concept and the associated risks by their litigation without cancelling my subscription. Maybe it is time to…

The ChatGPT subscription is more valuable because it's built on the theft of the NYT content and many other authors' work.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#190

Post by Aurornis »

dissident_coder wrote: post #56

Even if they win against openAI, how would this prevent something like a Chinese or Russian LLM from “stealing” their content and making their own superior LLM that isnt weakened by regulation like the ones in the United States. And I say this as someone that is extremely bothered by how easily mass amounts of open content can just be vacuumed up into a training set with reckless abandon and there isn’t much you can…

> Even if they win against openAI, how would this prevent something like a Chinese or Russian LLM from “stealing” their content and making their own superior LLM that isnt weakened by regulation like the ones in the United States.

Foreign companies can be barred from selling infringing products in the United States.

Russian and Chinese consumers are less interested in English-language articles.

I can’t really get behind the argument that we need to let LLM companies use any material they want because other countries (with other languages, no less) might not have the same restrictions.

If you want some examples of LLMs held back by regulations, look into some of the examinations of how Chinese LLMs are clearly trained to avoid answering certain topics that their government deems sensitive.

Post reply on HN