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

61–70 of 921 posts

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

#61

Post by gedy »

Vegenoid wrote: post #55
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.

Professors are largely behind a paywall

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

#62

Post by elashri »

Vegenoid wrote: post #55
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.

I think the scale only matters here (probably). Because I will find it hard that a teacher/professor will not be allowed to setup a service where they will teach and provide their knowledge for others. That is basically the concept of teaching. Of course until LLM, we never had this scale before. Millions of potential learners vs the normal hundreds in a classroom session. So that makes the new case interesting

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

#63

Post by KETHERCORTEX »

amadvance wrote: post #57
up2isomorphism wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ;)

When open source developers do that, they also include an explicit licensing information that lists cases when the usage is allowed and restricted. So even if the code is open source and licensed under GPL, its usage in a closed source product like ChatGPT is not allowed.

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

#64

Post by slyall »

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.

A small number of outputs of ChatGPT are close enough to training articles to be (probably) copyright infringement.

What does that mean?

Look up "substantial non-infringing use" and this little court case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

Now spend a few million on lawyers and roll your dice.

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

#65

Post by vidarh »

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.

I generally tend to downvote comments that use "x bros" for pretty much any x on sight for that reason. It's exceedingly rare for such a comment to be much more than a thinly veiled insult with little substance. Sometimes I might even agree with the insult, but it's still rarely appropriate here.

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

#66

Post by peyton »

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…

Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose.

Suppose I’m selling subscriptions to the New Jersey Times, a site which simply downloads New York Times articles and passes them through an autoencoder with some random noise. It serves the exact same purpose as the New York Times website, except I make the money. Is that fair use?

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

#67

Post by jarrell_mark »

spacecadet wrote: post #59
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?

Anything + 2 and then minus two is back to the original thing. This says more about the transformations than the source material.

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

#68

Post by tarruda »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #56
bloppe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy?

Probably not until they pay him a hefty copyright fee.

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

#69

Post by unsupp0rted »

Vegenoid wrote: post #55
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.

Would parroting back article content perfectly from memory certainly be copyright infringement?

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

#70

Post by echelon »

peyton wrote: post #66
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…

Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose. Suppose I’m selling subscriptions to the New Jersey Times, a site which simply downloads New York Times articles and passes them through an autoencoder with some random noise. It serves the exact same purpose as the New York Times website, except I make the money. Is that fai…

> Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose.

They transformed the weights.

Just like reading the article transforms yours.

As for verbatim reproduction, I'm pretty sure brains are capable of reproducing song lyrics, musical melodies, common symbols ("cool S"), and lots of other things verbatim too.

Those quotes from Dr. King's speech that you remember are copyrighted, you know?

Post reply on HN