661–670 of 912 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPT4 is absolutely capable of providing links to sources and citations. Do you mean in the Browsing Mode or something? I don't think it is naturally capable of that, both because it is performing lossy compression, and because in many cases it simply won't know where the text that was fed to it during training came from.
[flagged]
That's like suing someone who had an NYT subscription and read the paper daily for occasionally quoting a choice phrase verbatim. I've been quite critical of AIs impact on the livelihood of artists (whose economic position is precarious to start with, and who are now faced with replacement by machine generated art) but at the same time I reject the copyright complaint completely. Transformers are very obviously doing something else, similar to how a human learns and recreates; the key difference is that they can do it at scale unreachable by individuals.
I have deeply mixed feelings about the way LLMs slurp up copyrighted content and regurgitate it as something "new." As a software developer who has dabbled in machine learning, it is exciting to see the field progress. But I am also an author with a large catalog of writings, and my work has been captured by at least one LLM (according to a tool that can allegedly detect these things). Overall, current LLMs remind me…
Ehh LLMs have become a fundamental part of my work flow as a professional. GPT4 is absolutely capable of providing links to sources and citations. It is more reliable than most human teachers I have had and doesnt have an ego about its incorrect statements when challenged on them. It does become less useful as you get more technical or niche but its incredibly useful for learning in new areas or increasing the breadt…
To anthropomorphize it further, it's a plagiarizing bullshitter who apologizes quickly when any perceived error is called out (whether or not that particular bit of plagiarism or fabrication was correct), learning nothing, so its apology has no meaning, but it doesn't sound uppity about being a plagiarizing bullshitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People often get buried in the weeds about the purpose of copyright. Let us not forget that the only reason copyright laws exist is > To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries If copyright is starting to impede rather than promote progress, then it needs to change to remain constitutional.
Copyright isn't what got in the way here. AI could have negotiated a license agreement with the rights holder. But they chose not to.
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…
A human can't credit the source of each element of everything they've learnt. AI's can't either, and for the same reason. The knowledge gets distorted, blended, and reinterpreted a million ways by the time it's given as output. And the metadata (metaknowledge?) would be larger than the knowledge itself. The AI learnt every single concept it knows by reading online; including the structure of grammar, rules of logic,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GPT4 is absolutely capable of providing links to sources and citations. Do you mean in the Browsing Mode or something? I don't think it is naturally capable of that, both because it is performing lossy compression, and because in many cases it simply won't know where the text that was fed to it during training came from.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes... because you're stealing? But if you simply copied the unique works and stored them, nobody would care. If you then tried to turn around and sell the copies, well, the artist is probably dead anyway and the art is probably public domain, but if not, then yeah it'd be copyright infringement. If you only copied tiny parts of the art though, then fair use examinations in a court might come into play. It just depen…
Yes and OpenAI sells its copies as a subscription, so that’s at least copyright infringement if not theft.
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…
Which dozen outlets can replace the New York Times overnight? I will stipulate that the NYT isn’t worthy of historic preservation if it’s become obsolete — but which dozen outlets can replace it? Wouldn’t those dozen outlets suffer the same harms of producing original content, costing time and talent, and while having a significant portion of the benefit accruing to downstream AI companies? If most of the benefit of…
The main beneficiaries are not AI companies but AI users, who get tailored answers and help on demand. For OpenAI all tokens cost the same.
BTW, I like to play a game - take a hefty chunk of text from this page (or a twitter debate) and ask "Write a 1000 word long, textbook quality article based off this text". You will be surprised how nice it comes out, and grounded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why don’t they train their AI on non-copyrighted material? It’s only fair for the copyright owners to want a share of the pie. I’d want one as well for my work.
No it's not, it's pure greed. Everyone'd think it absurd if copyright holders dared to demand that any human who reads their publicly available text has to pay them a fee, but just because OpenAI are training a brain made of silicon instead of a brain made of carbon all the rent-seekers come out to try to take advantage.