421–430 of 921 posts
People who think the examples the lawsuit are “fair use” need to consider what that would mean. We’re basically going to let a few companies consolidate all the value on the Internet into their black boxes with basically no rules … that seems very dangerous to me. I hope a court establishes some rules of engagement here, even if it’s not this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF OpenAI has created a $100bn company on this transfer. The Times may have an interest in a material fraction of that wealth.
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
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Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim.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…
The archive link doesn't threaten their jobs and helps them avoid paying for NYT. It's NIMBY, or rather it's true form of NIIIM (Not if it impacts me). Hypocrites are EVERYWHERE and are the majority.
Now a comment points out that HN News (and most of the internet) routinely does something much worse - allows people to bypass completely new articles in their entirety without paying - and almost all the comments are about how it's the New York Times fault for making it difficult to cancel subscription, the importance of news being available to everyone, the problems with copyright laws, etc.
The NYT is preparing for a tsunami by building a sandcastle. Big picture, this suit won’t matter, for so many reasons. To enumerate a few: 1. Next gen LLMs will be trained exclusively on “synthetic”/public data. GPT-4V can easily whitewash its entire copyrighted training corpus to be unrecognizably distinct (say reworded by 40%, authors/sources stripped, etc). Ergo there will be no copyright material for GPT-5 to reg…
I'm sorry but this is such a bad take. Nice appeal to consequences. In my view, the New York Times is entirely justified in pursuing legal action. They invested time and effort in creating content, only to have it used without permission for monetary gain. A clear violation. Analyzing the factors involved for a "fair use" consideration: Purpose and Character of the Use: While the argument for transformation might hol…
The NYT is preparing for a tsunami by building a sandcastle. Big picture, this suit won’t matter, for so many reasons. To enumerate a few: 1. Next gen LLMs will be trained exclusively on “synthetic”/public data. GPT-4V can easily whitewash its entire copyrighted training corpus to be unrecognizably distinct (say reworded by 40%, authors/sources stripped, etc). Ergo there will be no copyright material for GPT-5 to reg…
Rent seeking? Media companies that actually create content are rent seeking? Versus the garbage hallucinations AI creates?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> which is real information about the society that we currently live in, should be availabe to all participants of that society. Who should pay the journalists or the investigative reporters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> , 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. Probably because most print media is garbage and nobody in their right mind would actually pay to read them
> Probably because most print media is garbage and nobody in their right mind would actually pay to read them NYTs revenue keeps growing though.
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…
There were some tweets the other day about how Midjourney could be prompted almost-exactly reproduce some frames of the film Dune. It wouldn't be shocking if these companies were using large databases of movies, with questionable legal status.
Not to be pedantic, but NYT has the least robust paywall I've ever seen. Just turn on reader mode in your browser. Simple. I get that it's still tresspassing if I walk into an unlocked house, but NYT could try installing a lock that isn't made of confetti and uncooked pasta.