Sad to say but I would believe a hallucination from OpenAI before I would believe anything that comes out of the NY Times. I mean the confidence interval for the NY Times is what again?
NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
631–640 of 921 posts
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you described is entirely fair use, actually. Not only that, look at a few news articles from Tier 2 and down publications, and you'll realize that almost all of them are directly sourced from NYT and others. They'll say "so and so happened, according to The Times" (and usually link the article there)
> What you described is entirely fair use, actually Just like during the pandemic how everyone became an epidemiologist, suddenly everyone's a copyright lawyer. I'll just dispute your assertion by saying: 1. Questions of fair use are famously gray, and anyone who declares something as "entirely fair use", with no caveats, is nearly always wrong except for the must obvious cases, which the given example is most defini…
> suddenly everyone's a copyright lawyer
Roll back 20+ years ago on Slashdot and you'll see the exact same thing.
Copyright has been a hot button issue on the internet for decades. People end up thinking (rightly or wrongly) that they understand it without being a lawyer.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#633Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would broaden the question beyond HN to society as a whole. In 1990 it would have been considered normal and appropriate to clip an article out of a newspaper and post it on a communal corkboard. What are the key differences between that form of IP and others, and that analogy and the present situation of HN allowing archive links?
Reach, and ease of distribution.
Makes sense. If you mail a friend a clipping, or post it on the corkboard, only so many people are going to see it, but then even though posting the "clipping" to HN may feel like the same thing, it's hard to appreciate the massive change in scale.
As for ease of distribution, that might address OP's original question: It's easy to make and click an archive link, but it's a lot more effort to make or find a Pirate Bay link to another form of media, and for someone else to download and view it.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#634We 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…
> it would be as if I would copy parts of other propriety code and copy paste it into my own codebase. It's not copy-pasted; it's compressed in a lossy manner. Even GPT4 has nowhere near enough memory to store the entirety of its training data in a non-lossy compression format. Just likes how humans compress the information we read.
If it’s lossy compressed how come they have verbatim content from NYT in there that’s easy to recall? That’s what the lawsuit is about.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine for a human to remember it. It's not fine for a human redistribute it for money (legally speaking). That's copyright infringement.
Correct, just like it’s infringement to reproduce an article from memory using pen and paper intentionally. The person deciding to do that bears responsibility. OpenAI would be liable IFF they were intentionally facilitating that, instead of it being an undesired artifact from overfitting.
I'm pretty sure if you reproduce a work from memory by accident, because you didn't notice your subconscious had just stored the entire article and is now reproducing it word for word, you'd still be guilty of copyright infringement.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#636Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Bing links to the source, chatbots doesn't.
bing's chatbot does
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#637The suit demonstrates instances where ChatGTP / Bing Copilot copy from the NYT verbatim. I think it is hard to argue that such copying constitutes "fair use". However, OAI/MS should be able to fix this within the current paradigm: Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. However, the suit goes far beyond claiming that such copying violates their copyright: "Unauthorized copying of Times Works without p…
> This is a strong claim that just downloading articles into training data is what violates the copyright. That GTP outputs verbatim copies is a red herring. It's the other way around. There is no infringement if the model output is not substantially similar to a work in the training set [1]: > To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright,…
The level of copying here is the copying into the training set, not the copying through use of the model.
Its true that OpenAI will defend the wholesale copying into the training set by arguing that the transformative purpose of the next use reaches back and renders that copying fair use, but while that's clearly the dominant position of the AI industry, and it definitely seems compatible with the Cobstitutional purpose of Fair Use (while currently statutory, the statutory provision is codification of Constitutional case law), it is a novel fair use argument.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#638The suit demonstrates instances where ChatGTP / Bing Copilot copy from the NYT verbatim. I think it is hard to argue that such copying constitutes "fair use". However, OAI/MS should be able to fix this within the current paradigm: Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. However, the suit goes far beyond claiming that such copying violates their copyright: "Unauthorized copying of Times Works without p…
Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose. Suppose I’m selling subscriptions to the New Jersey Times, a site which simply downloads New York Times articles and passes them through an autoencoder with some random noise. It serves the exact same purpose as the New York Times website, except I make the money. Is that fai…
> Well yeah, copying a work and using it for its original expressive purpose isn’t fair use, no? You have to use it for a transformative purpose.
To be clear, whether the use of the original work is transformative is one key consideration within one of the four prongs of fair use. The prong "purpose and character of the use" can be fulfilled by other conditions [1]. For example, using the original work within a classroom for education purposes is not transformative, but can fulfill the same "purpose and character of the use" prong. Whether the use is for profit and to which extent are other considerations within that prong. A profit purpose doesn't automatically fail the purpose prong, and a non-profit purpose doesn't automatically pass the purpose prong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac...
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#639It'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 think that's something worth reflecting on, about why we feel it's OK to pirate news articles, but not other IP As you noted it is not the norm to post pirate links here for IP other than news articles, but that doesn't mean that a lot of people think it is not OK to pirate those other forms of IP. In nearly any big discussion that even remotely involves video streaming there will be numerous posts from people ex…
> In nearly any big discussion that even remotely involves video streaming there will be numerous posts from people explaining why they pirate (usually with ridiculous justifications like "subscribing is not an option because even though this paid service does exactly what I want now at a price that is trivial for me they might someday later change").
If this is true, it should be easy for you to link to an example. Could you do so?
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#640The suit demonstrates instances where ChatGTP / Bing Copilot copy from the NYT verbatim. I think it is hard to argue that such copying constitutes "fair use". However, OAI/MS should be able to fix this within the current paradigm: Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. However, the suit goes far beyond claiming that such copying violates their copyright: "Unauthorized copying of Times Works without p…
> Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. This is not a RLHF problem. What I was expecting them to do is to keep a bloom filter of ngrams for known copyrighted content, such as enumerating all sets of n=7 consecutive words in an article, and validate against it. The model would only output at maximum n-1 words that look verbatim from the source. But this will blow up in their face. Let's see: - AI com…