Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 912 posts

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#881

Post by HDThoreaun »

insanitybit wrote: post #879
HDThoreaun wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI labs are working on and largely already have generative ai that can be actively updated. The generative ai scoops real journalists stories by watching their feed. This isn’t very different from the current status quo, it’s just a continuation of an already shitty situation for news organizations. If their revenue decreases even more than it already has they will cease to exist. Niche journalism barely has any dema…

Updated how? By what? Who is going out and investigating the world to write about? An AI does not have LEGS it can not go outside and go talk to someone and interview them, it can't attend a press conference without human assistance . You have not at all explained how an AI is going to somehow write a news post about something that has just happened.

Without money there will be no one investigating, there will be no news. If someone creates news it will be immediately ripped off so the only stable state here is no news at all

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#882

Post by iandanforth »

noobermin wrote: post #849
iandanforth wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing whether it can is not a useful discussion. You can absolutely train a net to memorize and recite text. As these models get more powerful they will memorize more text. The critical thing is how hard is it to make them recite copyrighted works. Critically the question is, did the developers put reasonable guardrails in place to prevent it? If a person with a very good memory reads an article, they only violate…

I hate to do this but this then becomes a "only bad people with a gun kill people" argument. Even most but the most ardent gun rights advocates in that scenario think they shouldn't be extended to very powerful weapons like bombs or nuclear weapons. In this situation then, this logic would be "sure this item allows a person to kill thousands or millions of people, but really the only person at fault in such a situati…

This is a lawsuit, not a call for regulatory action. They are claiming there are guilty parties under existing law. Culpability is the point.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#883

Post by soulofmischief »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #835
jeremyjh wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we're discussing litigation, it certainly matters what is legal.

And also - if what is legal isn't right, we live in a democracy and should change that. Saying what's legal is irrelevant is an odd take. I like living in a place with a rule of law.

Should Harriet Tubman have petitioned her local city council and waited for a referendum before freeing slaves?

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#884

Post by Sai_ »

cj wrote: post #858
Sai_ wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unfettered access to identifiable private conversations You misread the post I was responding to. They were suggesting health data with PII removed. Second, LLMs have proved that AI which gets unlimited training data can provide breakthroughs in AI capabilities. But they are not the whole universe of AIs. Some other AI tool, distinct from LLMs, which ingests en masse as much health data as it can could provide heal…

> could outweigh an individual's right to privacy. If that’s the case, let’s put it on the ballet and vote for it. I’m tired of big tech making policy decisions by “asking for permission later” and getting away with everything. If there truly is some breakthrough and all we need is everyone’s data, tell the population and sell it to the people and let’s vote on it!

> I’m tired of big tech making policy decisions by “asking for permission later” and getting away with everything

> If that’s the case, let’s put it on the ballet and vote for it.

This vote will mean "faster horses" for everyone. Exponential progress by committee is almost unheard of.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#885

Post by insanitybit »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #881
insanitybit wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Updated how? By what? Who is going out and investigating the world to write about? An AI does not have LEGS it can not go outside and go talk to someone and interview them, it can't attend a press conference without human assistance . You have not at all explained how an AI is going to somehow write a news post about something that has just happened.

Without money there will be no one investigating, there will be no news. If someone creates news it will be immediately ripped off so the only stable state here is no news at all

omg dude how HOW are you not understanding?

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#886

Post by ahepp »

fennecbutt wrote: post #870
ahepp wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, there are situations where humans are expected to provide sources for their claims. If you talk about an event in the news, it would be normal for me to ask where you heard about it. 100% accuracy in providing a source wouldn’t be expected, but if you told me you had no idea, or told me something obviously nonsense, I would probably take what you said less seriously.

The raw technology behind it literally cannot do that. The model is fuzzy, it's the learning part, it'll never follow the rules to the letter the same as humans fuck up all the time. But a model trained to be literate and parse meaning could be provided with the hard data via a vector DB or similar, it can cite sources from there or as it finds them via the internet and tbf this is how they should've trained the mode…

I agree that the model being fuzzy is key aspect of an LLM. It doesn't sound like we're just talking about re-using phrases though. "Simple as pie" is not under copyright. We're talking about the "knowledge" that the model has obtained and in some cases spits out verbatim without attribution.

I wonder if there's any possibility to train the model on a wide variety of sources, only for language function purposes, then as you say give it a separate knowledge vector.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#887

Post by noobermin »

iandanforth wrote: post #882
noobermin wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to do this but this then becomes a "only bad people with a gun kill people" argument. Even most but the most ardent gun rights advocates in that scenario think they shouldn't be extended to very powerful weapons like bombs or nuclear weapons. In this situation then, this logic would be "sure this item allows a person to kill thousands or millions of people, but really the only person at fault in such a situati…

This is a lawsuit, not a call for regulatory action. They are claiming there are guilty parties under existing law. Culpability is the point.

No you're right. The reply I made concerns the logic itself especially if this justification is used to ward off regulation in the future. For the suit in question, culpability in fact central.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#888

Post by [deleted] »

soulofmischief wrote: post #883
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also - if what is legal isn't right, we live in a democracy and should change that. Saying what's legal is irrelevant is an odd take. I like living in a place with a rule of law.

Should Harriet Tubman have petitioned her local city council and waited for a referendum before freeing slaves?

[deleted]

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#889

Post by fennecbutt »

ahepp wrote: post #886
fennecbutt wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The raw technology behind it literally cannot do that. The model is fuzzy, it's the learning part, it'll never follow the rules to the letter the same as humans fuck up all the time. But a model trained to be literate and parse meaning could be provided with the hard data via a vector DB or similar, it can cite sources from there or as it finds them via the internet and tbf this is how they should've trained the mode…

I agree that the model being fuzzy is key aspect of an LLM. It doesn't sound like we're just talking about re-using phrases though. "Simple as pie" is not under copyright. We're talking about the "knowledge" that the model has obtained and in some cases spits out verbatim without attribution. I wonder if there's any possibility to train the model on a wide variety of sources, only for language function purposes, then…

Sure, it definitely spits out facts, often not hallucinating. And it can reiterate titles and small chunks of copyright text.

But I still haven't seen a real example of it spitting out a book verbatim. You know where I think it got chunks of "copyright" text from GRRM's books?

Wikipedia. And https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/Wiki_of_Westeros, https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page, https://data.world/datasets/game-of-thrones all the god dammed wikis, databases etc based on his work, of which there are many, and of which most quote sections or whole passages of the books.

Someone prove to me that GPT can reproduce enough text verbatim that it makes it clear that it was trained on the original text first hand basis, rather than second hand from other sources.

Re: The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

#890

Post by kevinwang »

kevinwang wrote: post #135
Aurornis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The complaint has specific examples they got from ChatGPT. There is a precedent: There were some exploit prompts that could be used to get ChatGPT to emit random training set data. It would emit repeated words or gibberish that then spontaneously converged on to snippets of training data. OpenAI quickly worked to patch those and, presumably, invested energy into preventing it from emitting verbatim training data. It…

Hm... Why would people not just paste in sections of the book to the "raw" model in the playground (gpt instead of chatgpt) and just see if it completes the text correctly? Is the concern that chatgpt may have used the book for training data but not the original llm?

edit: i meant to say "used the book for chat finetuning/rlhf but not the original llm". Also, I saw one example of the regurgitation by openAI of a NYT article, and it was indeed GPT-4, not ChatGPT.
Post reply on HN