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

391–400 of 912 posts

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

#391

Post by Foobar8568 »

make3 wrote: post #340
aantix wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't AI at least cite its source? This feels like a broader problem, nothing specific to the NYTimes. Long term, if no one is given credit for their research, either the creators will start to wall off their content or not create at all. Both options would be sad. A humane attribution comment from the AI could go a long way - "I think I read something about this in the NYTimes on January 3rd, 2021." It appears t…

"Why can't AI at least cite its source" each article seen alters the weights a tiny, non-human understandable amount. it doesn't have a source, unless you think of the whole humongous corpus that it is trained on

So why my employer implementation version of azure chatgpt on our document systems can successfully cite its sourced documents?

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

#392

Post by safety1st »

jterrys wrote: post #300
safety1st wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT's strongest argument for infringement is that OpenAI is reproducing their content verbatim (and to make matters worse, without attribution). IANAL but it seems super likely to me that this will be found to be infringing sooner or later. Do I really want to use a Chinese word processor that spits unattributed passages from the NYT into the articles I write? Once I publish that to my blog now I'm infringing and…

>IANAL but it seems super likely to me that this will be found to be infringing sooner or later. It better. Copyright has essentially fucking ceased to exist in the eyes of AI people. Just because you have a shiny new toy doesn't mean the law suddenly stops applying to you. The internet does its best to route around laws and government but the more technologically up to date bureaucracy becomes, the faster it will ca…

Yeah I mean I'm not even really a fan of how copyright law works, but I don't see how you can just insert an "AI exemption." So OpenAI can infringe because they host an AI tool, but we humans can't? That would be ridiculous. Or is "I used AI when I created this" a defense against infringement? Also seems ridiculous. Why would we legally privilege machine creation of creative works over human creation in the first place? So I don't see what the credible AI-related copyright law reform is going to be yet.

Which means that either OpenAI is allowed to be the only lawbreaker in the country (because rich and lawyers), or nobody is. I say prosecute 'em and tell them to make tools that follow the law.

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

#393

Post by tacheiordache »

solardev wrote: post #313

I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country…

> we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper

Single most important development in human history? Are you serious?

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

#394

Post by solardev »

stronglikedan wrote: post #339
solardev wrote: post #313

I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country…

Why shouldn't the creators of the training content get anything for their efforts? With some guiderails in place to establish what is fair compensation, Fair Use can remain as-is.

Everyone learns from papers. That's the point of them, isn't it? Except we pay, what, $4 per Sunday paper or $10/mo for the digital edition? Why should a robot have to pay much more just because it's better at absorbing information?

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

#395

Post by solardev »

peyton wrote: post #364
solardev wrote: post #313

I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country…

If the future of humanity rests on access to old NYT articles, we’re fucked. Why can’t OpenAI try to get a license if the NYT archives are so important to them?

They're not. They can skip the entirety of the NYT archives and not much of value will be lost. The issue is with every copycat lawsuit that sues every AI company out of existence. It's a chilling effect on AI development. Old entrenched companies trying to prohibit new ways of learning and sharing information for the sake of their profit.

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

#396

Post by 8note »

aantix wrote: post #327
solardev wrote: post #313

I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country…

Why can't AI at least cite its source? This feels like a broader problem, nothing specific to the NYTimes. Long term, if no one is given credit for their research, either the creators will start to wall off their content or not create at all. Both options would be sad. A humane attribution comment from the AI could go a long way - "I think I read something about this in the NYTimes on January 3rd, 2021." It appears t…

If you're going to consider training ai as fair use, you'll have all kinds of different people with different skill levels training ais that work in different ways on the corpus.

Not all of them will have the capability to cite a source, and plenty of them won't have it make sense to cite a source.

Eg. Suppose I train a regression that guesses how many words will be in a book.

Which book do I cite when I do an inference? All of them?

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

#397

Post by 015a »

kbos87 wrote: post #170

Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.) I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if…

> a more established competitor

Apple is already doing this: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/technology/apple-ai-news-...

Apple caught a lot of shit over the past 18 months for their lack of AI strategy; but I think two years from now they're going to look like geniuses.

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

#398

Post by willseth »

exitb wrote: post #302
nullindividual wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright holders do get paid for library copies, in the US.

You make it seem as if the copyright holder is making more money on a library book, than on one sold in retail, which does not appear to be the case in the US.

The library pays for the books and the copyright holder gets paid. This is no different from buying a book retail, which you can read and share with family and friends after reading, or sell it, where it can be read again and sold again. The book is the product, not a license for one person to access the book.

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

#399

Post by layer8 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #366
JCM9 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing back large passages of verbatim content sold as your “product” without citation is almost certainly not fair use. Fair use would be saying “The New York Times said X” and then quoting a sentence with attribution. Thats not what OpenAI is being sued for. They’re being sued for passing off substantial bits of NYTimes content as their own IP and then charging for it saying it’s their own IP. This is also related…

At the root, it seems like there's also a gap in copyright with respect to AI around transformative. Is using something, in its entirety, as a tiny bit of a massive data set, in order to produce something novel... infringing? That's a pretty weird question that never existed when copyright was defined.

Replace the AI model by a human, and it should become pretty clear what is allowed and what isn’t, in terms of published output. The issue is that an AI model is like a human that you can force to produce copyright-infringing output, or at least where you have little control over whether the output is copyright-infringing or not.

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

#400

Post by pxoe »

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…

maybe they should build a better LLM? maybe they could ask the AI to make a better system. after all, tech and ai is so powerful that they could do virtually anything, except having accountability as it turns out.
Post reply on HN