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

381–390 of 921 posts

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

#381

Post by sensanaty »

munchinator wrote: post #176
killingtime74 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? If I was the NY Time's lawyers that what I would advise. What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway? These are corporations enforcing their rights against one another. There is nothing wrong with profit seeking from your copyright. That's literally their entire business model...they publish copyrighted content which they sell for a subscription. OpenAI and others could easil…

> What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway? It would serve the termination of the infringement. My point is that the Times doesn't particular seem to care about infringement per se, they care about getting their slice of the cut from that infringement. It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.

> It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.

I mean yeah, no one's gonna bother trying to squeeze money out of Joe Schmoe with 10 bucks in his bank account over some pirated movies. If a company with billions and billions of dollars like Netflix started pushing out pirated movies instead, then obviously they'd be sued into oblivion, as they should be.

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

#382

Post by __loam »

visarga wrote: post #146
__loam wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope people start calling out the "well it's fine if a human does it" arguments out for the rat fuck thinking it is. These are computational systems operating at very large scales run by some of the wealthiest companies in the world. If I go fishing, the regulations I have to comply with are very light because the effect I have on the environment is minimal. The regulations for an industrial fishing barge are right…

GPT is like a fleet of small fishing boats, each user driving their boat in another direction, not a fishing barge. For every token written by the model there must be a human who prompted, and then consumed it. It is manual, and personal, and deliberate. In fact all the demonstrations in the lawsuit PDF were intentionally angling for reproducing copyrighted content. They had to push the model to do it. That won't hap…

Gpt is operated by one company. If a million people eat your fish, you're still a barge.

Boo hoo they had to push it. That was never the problem with these bullshit nozzles. The issue is they put that stuff in the training set in the first place. If you can't be honest about that then I have no interest in debating this with you.

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

#383

Post by __loam »

kriro9jdjfif wrote: post #117
Garrrrrr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unfortunately that's not the crowd of people here. 80% of the comments under this thread (right now, 2:52est) are making similar arguments and *continue* to act like LLMs are doing something unique/creative... instead of just generating sentences, from algorithms, from virtually pirated content in the form of data mining

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-ge...

Gotta get that tender offer money somehow.

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

#384

Post by kolinko »

midasuni wrote: post #365
lexicality wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I don't see it as a moral thing but more a "what can you get away with" thing. I fully assume that if I was to post a magnet link to a torrent for whatever the link was about, I would be banned. Morally speaking, I think it's perfectly reasonable to download a copy of something and either read the relevant info for my current task or to sample it to decide if I want to buy it. I see it no different to using th…

So downloading a movie from piratebay is no different to using the library?

In some jurisdictions (Poland, possibly whole of EU), downloading any kind of materials - be it movies, books or music - is legal. Uploading/sharing - if not between friends&family members - not so.

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

#385

Post by some1else »

cesarb wrote: post #352
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…

> 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 yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or any other form of IP, it is in fact very much _not_ the norm for the top-rated comment to be a Pirate Bay link. If the sto…

Okay.

https://www.netflix.com/browse?jbv=81714181

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

#386

Post by jprete »

throwaway4good wrote: post #91

The lawsuit itself (which arstechnica links to): https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20... From page 30 and onwards has some fairly clear examples on how ChatGPT has an (internal) copy of copyrighted material which it will recite verbatim. Essentially if you copy a lot of copyrighted material into a blob and then apply some sort of destructive compression to it. How destructive would that compre…

The answer to the "closedness" is externally controlled audits.

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

#387

Post by octacat »

concordDance wrote: post #357
octacat wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if someone applies a filter to a video/audio, it is no more "copies" of the original work (no, it is still protected). AI still could produce exact or extremely similar results of stuff it learned on.

> AI still could produce exact or extremely similar results of stuff it learned on. Can it do so more than a human can? I think that's the key here. If an AI is no more precise than a human telling you about the news article they read today then ChatGPT learning process probably can't be morally called copying.

So, if someone decompiles a program and compiles it again, it would look different. "It is not copying", we just did some data laundering.

Feeding someone else data into your system is usually a violation of copyright. Even if you have a very "smart" system, trying to transform and obfuscate the original data.

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

#388

Post by kolinko »

Worth noting, that - at least the screenshot - shows an example of browsing functionality used to go around paywalls, not that the model itself is trained, or can reproduce the articles really.

IIRC this was the reason why the browsing plugin was disabled for some time after its introduction - they were patching up this hole.

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

#389

Post by Baldbvrhunter »

nulbyte wrote: post #332
Baldbvrhunter wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say 9 times out of 10 it's to get around the paywall and absolutely not some higher moralistic preservation of history. 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.

If I buy a book, I get a work of literature. But if I buy a news subscription I get a series of facts riddled with advertisements. I accept the former, but I oppose the latter. I suspect I'm not the only one.

I don't fully understand what you're opposing.

is it?

1) that you paid for news

2) that it included ads

both are just the price you want to pay. There are various state news outlets that you're probably already paying for - npr, pbs, bbc, cncb depending on your region

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

#390

Post by bena »

amelius wrote: post #327
Yizahi wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Or if I went into a museum and didn't like the art displayed there? If you are advocating for a free for all libertarian dystopia, well, I have some bad news for you - they never work.

> So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Not being able to un-see a movie and get your time and money back is one side of the coin. The other side is that information can be copied. Both sides suck for one of the parties. There's no reason why one of them gets it their way, especially if it requires a contrived legal framework while the other way would require no…

You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content.

And as long as you had the opportunity to experience the content, you’ve gotten what you paid for.

I don’t see “I don’t like it” as a valid reason for a refund.

Post reply on HN