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

191–200 of 921 posts

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

#191

Post by simion314 »

ramesh31 wrote: post #37
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.

It's inevitable that this question ends up at the supreme court. And the sooner the better IMO. It's clearly fair use. Generative agents will be seen legally as no different than a human artist leveraging the summation of their influences to create a new work.

>It's inevitable that this question ends up at the supreme court. And the sooner the better IMO. It's clearly fair use. Generative agents will be seen legally as no different than a human artist leveraging the summation of their influences to create a new work.

Why do you think the architecture is important? If I have a computer program and it outputs the an entire copyrighted poem then the answer to "is this copyright violation" SHOULD NOT depends on the architecture of the program.

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

#192

Post by tsimionescu »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #152
colechristensen wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is some point between fifty years ago and last week in which the copyright for the content of newspapers should be public domain. That part of copyright needs to be fixed. Your creative work does deserve at least some period of exclusive rights for you. Definitely not so much that your grandchildren get to quibble about it well into retirement. But also whatever the number 3 or 4 most valuable company i…

> But also whatever the number 3 or 4 most valuable company in the world doesn’t get to scrape your content daily to repackage and sell as intelligent systems. Here's a thing though: for 99%+ of that content, being turned into feedstock for ML model training is about the only valuable thing that came of its existence . If it were not for world-ending danger of too smart an AI being developed too quickly, I'd vote for…

Except if you do that, you will see the number of content producers plummet quite quickly, and then you won't have any new training data to train new LLMs on.

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

#193

Post by madeofpalk »

ninjinxo wrote: post #145
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hard drive can - bit for bit - recall video files. If I serve them to other people on the internet without permission of the copyright holder, that’s called piracy.

But is it still piracy if you compress them and serve only a likeness of the original?

Yes.

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

#194

Post by sgt101 »

tarruda wrote: post #72

Would be funny if NT Times won this and all commercial LLMs were shut down. Then LLMs would be distributed only via torrents, like most copyright infringing media.

What will happen in this case is that large content providers will get paid directly and smaller content providers will get rolled up into a licensing bag and get small indirect payouts. For example, we might see a model where people who's books have been used will get a pay out proportionate to the sales of the book (perhaps), so if your books sells just a few thousand copies expect $20 but if you sell millions expect $20k

LLM's will become more expensive and less attractive as money printers, this will screw with the business models of the direct provision folks like OpenAI, MS and Google, MS and Google will only shed tears for money spent while OpenAI will just not have as good an income stream until they think of something new.

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

#195

Post by pas »

heavyset_go wrote: post #168
TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but this then hits against learning/understanding and compression being fundamentally the same thing . I can't think of a better way to argue in favor of "it's fine if human does it, therefore it's fine if LLM does it", than from the "lossy compression" angle.

It's not okay for a human to pirate, plagiarize, violate IP rights and laws, etc. But I disagree with the underlying assumption that you can anthropomorphize LLMs. Gradient descent and backpropagation don't take place in the brain. LLMs "learn" in the same way that Excel sheets "learn". Humans are living beings with needs and rights. A person being able to legally squat in a home doesn't mean that a drone occupying p…

sure, but if I use an LLM to write a novel/article, I can be sued in civil court not the LLM.

but, more importantly, OpenAI can also be sued for tortious interference? (basically the civil equivalent of accessory)

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

#196

Post by laborcontract »

sagarm wrote: post #190
rich_sasha wrote: post #111

If you forget about the LLM aspect, and simply build a product out of (legally) scraped NYT articles, is that fair use? Let's say I host these, offer some indexing on it, and rewrite articles. Something like, summarise all articles on US-UK relationships over past 5 years. I charge money for it, and all I pay NYT is a monthly subscription fee. To keep things simple, let's say I never regurgitate chunks of verbatim NY…

Isn't it totally normal to write articles / blog posts that effectively summarize, and often quote from, news articles?

My impression is that it’s not necessarily legal, but going after bloggers and proving damages based is just a huge waste of their time. OpenAI came by with their fat stack of funding and changed that.

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

#197

Post by logicchains »

tsimionescu wrote: post #181
logicchains wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something like, summarise all articles on US-UK relationships over past 5 years. I charge money for it, and all I pay NYT is a monthly subscription fee. >Is that fair use? IANAL, but doesn't sound like it. If you pay someone to do the summarisation for you, then you publish the content and charge a fee for it, you're the one liable, not the person you paid to summarise it for you. Similarly if you ask GPT to do it…

That's not true at all. If you pay someone to copy NYT articles for you verbatim, and then they give the copies to you, and then you publish them online, then you've both violated the copyright. You are never allowed to make copies of copyrighted works, even for private deals (making such copies for purely personal use, such as archival, falls under fair use - but you can't build a service out of that). So, if the su…

>But if you simply ask for a summary of a specific article by, say, just name and date, and you get a copy of it, it's clear that GPT is storing the original data in some way, and thus it has copied the NYT's protected works without permission.

In this particular case they were using it via Bing, which actively did a HTTP request to the particular article to extract the content. So GPT hadn't memorised it verbatim, instead it fetched it, much like a human using a search engine would.

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

#198

Post by frakrx »

Under existing condition an AI news site seems like a good investment idea. Its AI could read all relevant news sources and retell them and republish them in its own articles. It could even have its own AI editors and contributors. Cannot see how human news companies could compete.

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

#199

Post by logicchains »

frakrx wrote: post #198

Under existing condition an AI news site seems like a good investment idea. Its AI could read all relevant news sources and retell them and republish them in its own articles. It could even have its own AI editors and contributors. Cannot see how human news companies could compete.

>Cannot see how human news companies could compete.

News ultimately comes from physical sources on the ground, which currently AI has no way of doing.

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

#200

Post by Erratic6576 »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

I find “4nn4’$ 4rch1v3 dot ORG” actually way better than pirate bay for pirating knowledge.

It’s amazing the amount of books that copyright laws prevent us from finding

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-m...

Post reply on HN