Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are piece of software then yes.
Yes to what?
A human could tell.
NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
271–280 of 921 posts
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is legal. Fair use. People have been doing it for ages. Almost every article you've ever read has some fair use of another article, book or news item, etc.
When it becomes a service where you make money but the source doesn’t is it still fair use?
Yeah. No one is out there suing the shit out of cliff notes because they published a summary of Catcher in the Rye.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NYT is also worth a tiny fraction of that. If it looks like they might get anywhere, it might be better for OpenAI to buy them
That would require NYT being willing to sell, which historically they have not been.
I just looked up the share structure; didn't realise the publicly traded shares only appoints 1/3 of the board. Still their second best option is start buying up competitors and going ahead with purging NYT from their training set. That might well end up a worse option for NYT, as they won't stop LLMs from gradually intruding on their space and the moment OpenAI or other LLM providers own major publishers so they don't need to depend on scraping, they lose any leverage they currently have.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Gradient descent and backpropagation don't take place in the brain. Not exactly, no, but the 'neurons that fire together wire together' way of learning has a pretty similar effect. > LLMs "learn" in the same way that Excel sheets "learn". I've never seen an excel sheet do anything like backpropagation.
> I've never seen an excel sheet do anything like backpropagation.
Not strictly in the sense you mentioned (assuming that you mean "by themselves") but people may find [1] and [2] interesting.
[1] https://pub.towardsai.net/building-a-neural-network-with-bac...
[2] https://towardsdatascience.com/demystifying-feed-forward-and...
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#275I think LLMs may really change the IP landscape.
Culturally we’re taught that there is a moral component to copyright and patent law - that stealing is stealing. But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era. Copyright and patent laws exist for practical, pragmatic reasons - and seemingly they have served us well, but it’s not unreasonable to re-examine them from first principals.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#276I think LLMs may really change the IP landscape. Culturally we’re taught that there is a moral component to copyright and patent law - that stealing is stealing. But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era. Copyright and patent laws exist for practical, pragmatic reasons -…
I remember a case where the court did not allow ID to patent "First person shooters"
This rings similar.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
NYT do not "have" content, they create content. It's their raison d'etre.
They have content that LLMs want to use in training - millions of historical articles.
They created that content. It's an important distinction to make as compared to Reddit or Facebook where the users created the content.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#278It'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…
Good comment, it was very funny to see how people desperately try to find moral justification for pirating media A but not B. "It's apples to oranges, you see, there are less letters in the NYT article than in the book and they are rendered differently, so it is ok to pirate their work. I did nothing wrong!" :)
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#279I think LLMs may really change the IP landscape. Culturally we’re taught that there is a moral component to copyright and patent law - that stealing is stealing. But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era. Copyright and patent laws exist for practical, pragmatic reasons -…
> But the idea that words or thoughts or images can be owned (and that the might if the state can be brought to bear to enforce it) would seem utterly ludicrous to someone from an earlier era.
Is there any research into how people from earlier eras thought about it? And should all laws that seemed ludicrous to someone from an earlier era be discarded? If not, how exactly do we determine the relevance of what someone from an earlier era would think about our laws?
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#280It'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…
Blocking ads and avoiding payment are two different things.