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

NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 921 posts

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#51

Post by aurareturn »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #27
aurareturn wrote: post #25

Companies that have content all see dollar signs. NYT won't mind if you use their content to train LLMs - as long as they get a commission. Reddit will shut down their free API and make you pay to get training content. Discord is going to be selling content for AI training too - if they haven't already done so. Twitter is doing it. They didn't care before because LLMs were just experiments. Now we're talking trillion…

> They didn't care before because LLMs were just experiments. Now we're talking trillions of dollars of value. Can you make the argument this was their fault for not having forward vision/being asleep at the wheel and "accidentally, in hindsight" letting OpenAI/others have free, open, unlimited access to their content?

No, I can't. It's just an observation with no personal opinion.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#52

Post by bloppe »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #24

I read a NYT article and publish a summary of facts that I learned: totally legit. Train a model on NYT text that outputs a summary of facts that it learned: OMG literally murder.

Sounds like you didn't read the article. Here's a better synoposis:

I read a NYT article and publish an exact copy of that article on my website: copyright infringement.

Train a model on NYT text and it outputs an exact copy of that text: also copyright infringement.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#53

Post by faeriechangling »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #7

It's obviously a frivolous suit that will only net at best a ceremonial victory for NYTimes: 8 figure max payout and a promise to not use NYtimes material in the future. The trajectory and value to society of OpenAI vs NYtimes could not be greater. They have won no favors in the court of public opinion with their frequent misinformation. It's all just a big waste of time, the last of the old guard flailing against th…

I've never really known The New York Times to file frivolous lawsuits.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#54

Post by dahart »

fasterik wrote: post #26

I've been arguing since ChatGPT came out that LLMs should fall under fair use as a "transformative work". I'm not a lawyer and this is just my non-expert opinion, but it will be interesting to see what the legal system has to say about this.

This seems like a reasonable opinion when you think about the training data size and imagine that any given output is some kind of interpolation of some unknown large number of training examples all from different people. If it’s borrowing snippets from tens or hundreds or thousands of sources, then who’s copyrights are being violated? Remixing in music seems to be withstanding some amount of legal scrutiny, as long as the remix is borrowing from multiple sources and the music is clearly different and original.

It gets harder to stand behind a blanket claim that LLMs or any AI we’ve got falls under fair use when they keep repeatedly reproducing complete and identifiable individual works and clearly violating copyright laws in specific instances. The models might be remixing and/or transformative most of the time, but we have proof that they don’t do that every time nor all the time… yet. Maybe the lawsuits will be the impetus we need to fix the AIs so they don’t reproduce specific works, and thus make the fair use claim solid and actually defensible?

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#55

Post by Vegenoid »

altals2023 wrote: post #49

Won't hold in court. GPT is a platform mainly providing answer to private individuals asking. Is like you ask a professor a question and he answered verbatim what copyrighted materials available (due to photographic memory) word for word back to you. Now if you take this answer and write a book or publish enmass on blogs for example, then you are the one should be sued by NYT. If GPT use the exact same wordings and p…

If said professor offered a service where anyone could ask them for information that is behind a paywall, and they provided it without significant transformation, this would certainly be copyright infringement that the copyright holder would have every right and motivation to take action against.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#56

Post by cycrutchfield »

bloppe wrote: post #52
cycrutchfield wrote: post #24

I read a NYT article and publish a summary of facts that I learned: totally legit. Train a model on NYT text that outputs a summary of facts that it learned: OMG literally murder.

Sounds like you didn't read the article. Here's a better synoposis: I read a NYT article and publish an exact copy of that article on my website: copyright infringement. Train a model on NYT text and it outputs an exact copy of that text: also copyright infringement.

So presumably when they fix that issue (which, if the text matches exactly, should be trivially easy) then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy?

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#57

Post by amadvance »

up2isomorphism wrote: post #30
aurareturn wrote: post #25

Companies that have content all see dollar signs. NYT won't mind if you use their content to train LLMs - as long as they get a commission. Reddit will shut down their free API and make you pay to get training content. Discord is going to be selling content for AI training too - if they haven't already done so. Twitter is doing it. They didn't care before because LLMs were just experiments. Now we're talking trillion…

"They" also include the people working there. Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free just let someone to train it and make money out of it as a consequence?

> Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free

OpenSource developers did that ;)

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#59

Post by spacecadet »

groceryheist wrote: post #41

The suit demonstrates instances where ChatGTP / Bing Copilot copy from the NYT verbatim. I think it is hard to argue that such copying constitutes "fair use". However, OAI/MS should be able to fix this within the current paradigm: Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. However, the suit goes far beyond claiming that such copying violates their copyright: "Unauthorized copying of Times Works without p…

Transformations are happening. Maybe if the output is verbatim afterwards, than that says something about the outputs originality all along... or am I a troll?

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#60

Post by beau_g »

chatmasta wrote: post #42
rvz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. This tired 'fair use' excuses from AI bros whilst the GPT has reproduced the article text verbatim, word for word and it being monetized without the permission from the copyright holder and source (NYT) is an obvious copyright violation 101. Full stop. Again, just like Getty v. Stability, this copyright lawsuit will end in a licensing deal. Apple played it smart with their choice with licensing deals to tr…

> AI bros What (or whom) do you consider to be an "AI bro?" This sort of ad hominem generalization usually accompanies a weak argument.

Young males that wear Tensorflow branded muscle tank tops and drive Mitsubishi Eclipse convertibles with the vanity plate OVERFIT. They are everywhere these days.
Post reply on HN