261–270 of 921 posts
If I create a news website where I write articles in the following way: - Read 20 different news websites and their story on the same event/topic - Wait an hour, grab a cup of coffee - Sit down to write my article, never from this point I open any of the 20 news websites, I write the story from my head - I don't consult any other source, just write from my memory, and my memory is, let's say, not the best one, so I w…
If you are piece of software then yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, NYT website willingly gave out all the information without imposing limitations. Seeing terms of service requires visiting a separate page, they aren't seen immediately upon visiting the website. Understanding and accepting the terms also requires a human interaction. robots.txt on nytimes.com now disallows indexing by GPTBot, so there's an argument against automated information acquisition startin…
Seems weird to argue that you have to speak up if you don’t want something done to you or else you consent to everything. I do think that’s the case for some things but especially for new things that doesn’t seem like a common sense understanding of the world.
If you don't want people to get at your land, setting up even a small fence creates an explicit indication of limitations. Just like the record in robots.txt I mentioned earlier.
New York Times also doesn't limit article text content if you just request HTML, which is typical for automated cases. But they impose th limits imposed on users viewing the pages in browser with Javascript, CSS and everything else. So they clearly:
1. Have a way to determine the user's eligibility for reading the full article on server side.
2. Don't limit the content for typical automated cases on server side.
3. Have a way to track the activity of not logged in users, determining the eligibility for access. So it's reasonable to assume that they had records of repeated access from the same origin, but didn't impose any limitations before some time.
So there are enough reasons to think that robots are welcome to read the articles fully. I'm not talking about copyright violations here, only about the ability to receive the data.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you. No, you'd both be liable. You are not allowed to create copies of a copyrighted work, even from memory, for any commercial purpose. Making it public or not is irrelevant. This is more obvious with s…
Your previous employer never bought AutoCAD, they licenced its use, paying a subscription. When you start working for them that licence was no longer available to you. So you would be unable to subsequently use it.
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…
To me, there is a sense that the news, which is real information about the society that we currently live in, should be availabe to all participants of that society. The notion of being a good citizen requires that one stays informed. Books, movies, videogames etc. don't have that role and are more consumption goods.
Who pays?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It's just curious to me that news article have a pirated knowledge link as the de facto top comment, but link submissions to, for example, books for sale on Amazon don't have a link to Anna's Archive or equivalent.
I think the archive of an article is more preservation of history and maintaining records of events which often disappear if not archived. The number of threads referencing articles which are defunct is always increasing. A book or movie or original content on the other hand will continue to hold its own commercial value so reproducing it is more akin to an actual loss for the license holder. Definitely a grey area w…
And everything is a grey area, determining the line is the existential purpose of these court cases.
We've been here before with hyperlinking, then indexing and then linking with previews and the Canadian Facebook stuff but I think this has more standing.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose that's a relatively easy thing to fix, technically. It proves, however, that th underlying LLM is trained on copyrighted data. I'm not sure the problem goes away simply if the LLM in question (or any other one) gets some "no verbose regurgitation" filter.
In that case, the language model calls a search function and just repeats the result out its conversation context, not its training data. With that in mind it's not clear why it's ok for Bing itself to quote the source, but it stops being ok, when a chatbot does it.
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…
To me, there is a sense that the news, which is real information about the society that we currently live in, should be availabe to all participants of that society. The notion of being a good citizen requires that one stays informed. Books, movies, videogames etc. don't have that role and are more consumption goods.
We developers like to pretend that LLM's are akin to humans and that they've been using things like NYTimes like humans as educational material. But they are not. It's much simpler, proprietary writing is now integrated into the source code of OpenAI, it would be as if I would copy parts of other propriety code and copy paste it into my own codebase. Claiming copy paste is a natural evolving process of millions of ye…
Developers thinking LLMs are akin to humans arent the brightest crop, and are usually a topic of ridicule.