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

711–720 of 921 posts

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

#711

Post by jjeaff »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #696

What if you were one of the people who read the Times from cover-to-cover every day and seriously tries to remember as much as possible because you consider it a trustworthy reference source? And if you were called upon to solve a problem based on knowledge you consider trustworthy, what would you come up with? What if you were even specifically directed to utilize only findings gleaned from the Times exclusively? An…

That would of course be fine.

But then imagine that because human memory is not able to keep all that information straight, you made copies of all those newspapers.

And then you started charging people for your knowledge.

And then imagine that as part of your knowledge service, you would copy snippets from the times word for word and give that to your clients without citation and pass it off as your own.

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

#712

Post by [deleted] »

ls612 wrote: post #677
forrestthewoods wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the lawsuit has any merit The lawsuit fundamentally has merit. It asks a huge open question that no one knows the answer to. The outcome will be extraordinarily impactful. The question must be answered at some point. The case has merit even if NYT loses across the board.

How is the question being asked different from the Google Books case?

[deleted]

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

#713

Post by semiquaver »

freejazz wrote: post #686
semiquaver wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that? Commercial vs noncommercial use is a primary factor in the “purpose” prong of the fair use balancing test and a significant one in the “market effects” prong. That a use is noncommercial is often a deciding factor in the success of a fair use defense. GP is overstating it though, since it’s still one of many factors.

Because anyone that is familiar with fair use knows that the purpose prong and the commerciality aspect of it is not one of the more important prongs of the fair use analysis, whereas transformation is. Transformation adjusts what is a purpose that falls under fair use. Did you read Warhol??

Yes. Warhol is an example where the commercial nature of the secondary use was the deciding factor in its failure to pass the purpose prong.

  > In sum, if an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.
(P4). It’s very likely that a noncommercial secondary use would have passed under the reasoning in Warhol. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

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

#714

Post by dsgnr »

andy99 wrote: post #645

I don't think the lawsuit has any merit, but I'd still like to encourage Sam Altman et al, if they really care about the greater good, to go Keyser Söze and immediately release torrents of the weights and source code for GPT-4 under GPL.

[dead]

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

#715

Post by ruune »

stuckinhell wrote: post #516
ciabattabread wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rent seeking media companies Rent seeking? Media companies that actually create content are rent seeking? Versus the garbage hallucinations AI creates?

The New York Times is dying company that is rent seeking here. Along time ago, their content was valuable, yet now you can't even give it away to researchers. I know because they tried to make a deal with my company, we passed because social media data is infinitely more valuable.

You don't want to seriously tell me that garbage on Twitter in 240 characters is more useful to me than actual journalism, do you?

Maybe their data isn't as valuable to eg. advertisers than the data their audience actually shouted into the internet themselves (guess what), but the thing they've been actually selling for a long time now, journalism, can't be dying that fast considering we're both on this website that in big parts consists of discussing journalism.

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

#716

Post by mensetmanusman »

heavyset_go wrote: post #168
TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but this then hits against learning/understanding and compression being fundamentally the same thing . I can't think of a better way to argue in favor of "it's fine if human does it, therefore it's fine if LLM does it", than from the "lossy compression" angle.

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…

"It's not okay for a human to pirate, plagiarize, violate IP rights and laws, etc."

most of the world disagrees with this view, and that means they will create the AI that wins.

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

#717

Post by mongol »

glimshe wrote: post #705
forrestthewoods wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think the lawsuit has any merit The lawsuit fundamentally has merit. It asks a huge open question that no one knows the answer to. The outcome will be extraordinarily impactful. The question must be answered at some point. The case has merit even if NYT loses across the board.

For the good of the world, let's hope the NYT loses across the board. It's basically behaving like a copyright troll here.

I am of opposite opinion. I think it is unreasonable to train AI using copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder, at least if it is done to create a proprietary product. It is probable even unreasonable if the end result would not be proprietary but at least that would benefit the world more.

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

#718

Post by [deleted] »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #600
carlosdp wrote: post #580

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

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

#719

Post by JohnFen »

semiquaver wrote: post #682
JohnFen wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. In the US, whether or not you make money has little to do with whether or not your use qualifies as "fair use".

Why do you say that? Commercial vs noncommercial use is a primary factor in the “purpose” prong of the fair use balancing test and a significant one in the “market effects” prong. That a use is noncommercial is often a deciding factor in the success of a fair use defense. GP is overstating it though, since it’s still one of many factors.

Whether or not the use is commercial is certainly one of the considerations, but it's not the most significant one generally. There certainly can be specific cases where it's very significant, of course.

But what I was arguing was that a use is not "fair use" merely because it's noncommercial in nature. I cannot make copies of movies and give them away on the street for free and successfully claim "fair use".

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

#720

Post by danans »

ben_w wrote: post #464
heavyset_go wrote: post #168

Earlier 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…

> 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". Backprop doesn't happen in us, but I think our neurones still do gradient descent – synapses that fire together, wire together. And ultimately, at the deepest level we can analyse, our brains' atoms are doing qua…

> We need to figure out what the deeper rules are that lead to the status quo, not merely mimic the superficial result.

Sure, that's an interesting path of inquiry, and one should be free to understand themselves as being no different than a machine if they desire.

But the objective of laws is the benefit of (at least some) humans, not machines covered in lab grown tissue. The process of being human is a big part of what makes us human.

Post reply on HN