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

681–690 of 912 posts

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

#681

Post by MeImCounting »

abenga wrote: post #667
MeImCounting wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I would be more impressed if it returned links to the specific RFCs and more specific pages elsewhere. What's a top-level link to OCW worth here? OCW is amazing, but has classes on practically everything. These are practically just domain names for "places to learn about the internet".

Well I asked it about tcp/ip generally and it provided general resources. Based on the context of my question thats about what one would expect. Its not perfect but it definitely can give urls to specific resources. It would be great if it got better at giving more specific links sure and some domains it can give more specific links than others for instance some git projects it can give precise references to docs while it doesnt seem to have the URLs for more specific courses on OCW, its not perfect but it is still a capability that it has.

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

#682

Post by _aavaa_ »

logicchains wrote: post #658
_aavaa_ wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s found that the use of the material is infringing on the rights of the copyright holder than the AI company has to retrain their model without any material they don’t have a right to. Pretty clear to me

By that logic Microsoft Word should have to refuse to save or print any text that contained copyrighted content. GPT is just a tool; the user who's asking it to produce copyrighted content (and then publishing that content) is the one violating the copyright, and they're the ones who should be liable.

I don’t even know where to begin on this example.

The situations aren’t remotely similar and that much should be obvious. In one instance ChatGPT is reproducing copyrighted work and in the other Word is taking keyboard input from the user; Word itself isn’t producing anything itself.

> GPT is just a tool.

I don’t know what point this is supposed to make. It is not “just a tool” in the sense that it has no impact on what gets written.

Which brings us back to the beginning.

> the user who’s asking it to produce copyrighted content.

ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted content. The fact that it CAN reproduce the copyrighted content and the fact that it was trained on it is what the argument is about.

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

#683

Post by tsimionescu »

denton-scratch wrote: post #653
tsimionescu wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that it has never been done successfully outside performance arts.

I used to work as a computer programmer until I retired. Nearly always, my work was part of a collaborative effort, and latterly didn't include any copyright claim. My income was never impacted by unauthorized copying. Until the 80s, there was no copyright on software, and yet even then people made a living programming. Craftsmen don't claim copyright on their artifacts. Furniture designs were widely copied; but Chip…

I very much doubt the company or foundation you were working for was selling the non-copyrighted software. If it was, it probably only worked on very specific hardware that you also produced and were selling, and thus copying it was largely useless. If you were working for a university, than the university obviously doesn't make money from selling software, and thus doesn't care for copyright as much.

Also, craftsmen rely on the fact that the part of their work that can't be easily copied, the physical artifact they produce, is most of the value (plus they rely on trademark laws and design patents quite often). Similarly for gardeners. The ancient greek writers were again paid for performance, typically as teachers. Literature was once quite a performative act. And again, at that time, physical copies of writings were greatly valuable artifacts, not that much different from the value of the writing itself, since copying large texts was so hard.

Similarly, the work of drivers, labourers, factory workers, accountants is valuable in itself and very hard or impossible to copy (again, the physical world is the ultimate copyright protection). The output of lawyers is in fact sometimes copyrighted, but even when it's not, it's not applicable to others' cases, so copies of it are not valuable: no one is making a business that replaces lawyers by re-distributing affidavits.

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

#684

Post by oliveshell »

soultrees wrote: post #292
oliveshell wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’d like a productive comment if you have it.

I'd've liked very much to give you one, but your blanket dismissal of what I consider to be a very important step for the field of AI ethics as the work of "Innovation Sponges" reveals that we fundamentally disagree about some pretty big underlying issues here.

In the future, if you wish to invite productive comments and not curt dismissal, consider framing your concerns as potential risks rather than the cynical expressions of fatalistic certainty so often employed by naive, greedy technologists when regulation that is firmly in the public interest threatens their paychecks.

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

#685

Post by jeffbee »

Someone1234 wrote: post #673
jeffbee wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP did not need to be hosted by Google.

When it launched it absolutely did.

Nope. Even the launch press release from 2015 mentions specifically that origins still host their own content under AMP.

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

#686

Post by aantix »

pama wrote: post #590
aantix wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine spending decades of your life, studying skin cancer, only to have some $20/month ChatGPT index your latest findings and spit out generically to some subpar researcher: "Here's how I would cure melanoma!" followed by your detailed findings. Zero mention of you. F-that. Attribution, as best they can, is the least OpenAI can do as a service to humanity. It's a nod to all content creators that they have b…

If the future AI can indeed cure disease my mission of working in drug discovery will be complete. I’d much rather help cure people (my brother died of melanoma) than protect any patent rights or copyrighted text.

The point is if you stop giving proper credit, people stop publicly publishing.

Would you keep publishing articles if five people immediately stole the content and put it up on their site, claiming ownership of your research? Doubtful.

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

#687

Post by verve_rat »

hibikir wrote: post #511
cogman10 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all remember when Aaron Swartz got hit with a wire tapping and intent to distribute federal crime for downloading JSTR stuff right? It's really disgusting, IMO, that corporations that go above and beyond that sort of behavior are seeing NO federal investigations for this sort of behavior. Yet a private citizen does it and it's threats of life in prison. This isn't new, but it speaks to a major hole in our legal sy…

What happened to Aaron Swartz was terrible. I find that what he was doing was outright good. IMO the right reading isn't to make sure anyone doing something similar faces the same way, but to make the information far more free, whether it's a corporation using it or not. I don't want them to steamroll everyone equally here, but to not steamroll anyone.

There are two points at issue here. One, that information should be more free, and two, that large corporations and private individuals should be equal before the law.

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

#689

Post by oliveshell »

soultrees wrote: post #230

Here come the innovation sponges. If this goes through then the models that the general public have access are going to be severely neutered while the ownership class will have a much better model that will never see the light of day due to legal risks and claims like this - therefore increasing the disparity between us all.

I made a reply about rolling my eyes to this comment that got flagged (rightly so); this was unproductive and impulsive and I admit I shouldn't have done it.

I'm not sure how HN handles replies to flagged comments, so I'm posting the following here in the hopes it'll be seen by more fellow technical people :

In the future, if you wish to invite productive comments from your audience and not curt dismissal, consider framing your concerns as potential risks rather than the cynical expressions of fatalistic certainty so often employed by naive, greedy technologists when regulation that is firmly in the public interest threatens their paychecks.

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

#690

Post by tremon »

anigbrowl wrote: post #652
cogman10 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't circumvent computer security. He had had a right to use the MIT network and pull the JSTR information. He certainly did it in a shady way (computer in a closet) but it's every bit as arguable that he did it that way because he didn't want someone stealing or unplugging his laptop while it was downloading the data. He also did not distribute the information wholesale. What he planned on doing with the inform…

OpenAI IS distributing information they got wholesale from the internet Facts are not subject to copyright. It's very obvious ChatGPT is more than a search engine regurgitating copies of pages it indexed.

Facts are not subject to copyright

That's false; but even assuming it's true, misinformation is creative content and therefore 99% of the Internet is subject to copyright.

Post reply on HN