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

851–860 of 921 posts

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

#851

Post by caconym_ »

fennecbutt wrote: post #845
caconym_ wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You took that quote out of context and missed the broader point in the process. The snippets provided in regular search results cannot generally replace the substance of the full articles they link to, while that's the whole point of GP's hypothetical website—it simply doesn't reproduce large chunks of text verbatim, presumably to avoid copyright infringement claims in the hypothetical's frame, and in GP's rhetorical…

>content whose substance was created by someone else And how did the training data contribute to the content in any meaningful way? Inspiration isn't substance. You think all fantasy writers gotta pay Tolkien estate bc so much of fantasy draws from his tropes? Lmao no.

> And how did the training data contribute to the content in any meaningful way? Inspiration isn't substance.

If training data is so unimportant, why not simply not use it and avoid the controversy? At the very least that would certainly fix the issue where the model demonstrates how "inspired" it is by NYT articles by reproducing them verbatim.

:)

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

#852

Post by blehn »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #825
blehn wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a great way to destroy what is left of art as we know it. Anna Karenina is just numbers. In The Mood For Love is just numbers. Right. What do you propose is the business model for artists in the absence of copyright?

I propose getting paid before doing the work for the actual labor of creation. Crowdfunding, patronage, comissions, sponsorships all seem like ethical ways to get things done sustainably. That way creators get paid before they work, not after. We must strengthen these business models that don't depend on artificial scarcity because this number selling nonsense was over the second computers were invented. It's as dumb…

How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation (or even after)? If you're saying that only the labor has value, and all labor is valued equally, that sounds sort of like marxism, which could be fine, but it's hard to say how well artists would be supported in that case.

In the US, the original copyright length was 14 years, and then 28, and eventually the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. I think the intent of the law is economically justified, but the current length is outrageous.

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

#853

Post by up2isomorphism »

amadvance wrote: post #57
up2isomorphism wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They" also include the people working there. Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free just let someone to train it and make money out of it as a consequence?

> Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free OpenSource developers did that ;)

So Just because some people give out something for free at certain time, all the other people should do the same all the time? Not to mention most open source comes with a well-defined term not just exploited from free by a closed service making money for another company.

Earnestly I found ";)" deeply troublesome.

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

#854

Post by up2isomorphism »

tucnak wrote: post #34
up2isomorphism wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They" also include the people working there. Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free just let someone to train it and make money out of it as a consequence?

>Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free They are not giving it out "for free", in fact they're being paid by their employer to write these articles. Moreover, the writers themselves stand noth' to gain from their past writings financially as they don't belong to the ownership structure of the business.

Think one step further, how their employer pay them? Where does that money come from?

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

#855

Post by gls2ro »

anticensor wrote: post #796
hn_acker wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use is specific to the US, as far as I'm aware. Moreover, Congress had to codify fair use (turn fair use common into statutory law in the form of 17 U.S. Code § 107) in order to make copyright statutes compatible with the First Amendment. Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press, so copyright law in a different country usually lacks a unifying exception test like fair use to…

> Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press This is demonstrably wrong. Many countries have both freedoms, albeit some have less strong protection than others.

I have to point out that you did not refute the initial assertion.

They said "Most other countries" and you replied with "Many countries"

"Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".

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

#856

Post by esperent »

midasuni wrote: post #377
esperent wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They created that content. It's an important distinction to make as compared to Reddit or Facebook where the users created the content.

The journalists created the content for the NYT, the users created it for Facebook. Both received something in return for their effort, and the content ended up being owned by NYT/facebook

The journalists were paid to assign ownership of their work to the NYT corporation, with a clear and well understood contract of work that they signed, either in real ink or with an equivalent electronic signature, as consenting adults.

Can you say the same for user created content on Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook? A user agreement that nobody reads doesn't have anything like the same legal basis as a signed contract. Not to mention that a large percentage of users are not adults.

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

#857

Post by defrost »

gls2ro wrote: post #855
anticensor wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press This is demonstrably wrong. Many countries have both freedoms, albeit some have less strong protection than others.

I have to point out that you did not refute the initial assertion. They said "Most other countries" and you replied with "Many countries" "Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".

Most female Vice Presidents of the USofA would not agree that that there are many female US Vice Presidents.

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

#858

Post by dragonwriter »

gls2ro wrote: post #855
anticensor wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press This is demonstrably wrong. Many countries have both freedoms, albeit some have less strong protection than others.

I have to point out that you did not refute the initial assertion. They said "Most other countries" and you replied with "Many countries" "Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".

> "Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".

No, it doesn't. If a set is of sufficiently low cardinality, “most” (in extreme cases, even “all”) of the set may not be “many”.

Most-all, in fact—Catholic Presidents of the United States have been Democrats. But it is not the case that many Catholic Presidents have been Democrats.

Most women to have served on the US Supreme Court did so only after its first 200 years. But, again, there were not many women who served on the Supreme Court only after its first 200 years.

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

#859

Post by tsimionescu »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #724
tsimionescu wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article states that they used it initially through ChatGPT, but that seems to have been fixed in the meantime, at least for the very simplistic queries that used to work ("the first paragraph of the Carl Zimmer article on old DNA" in ChatGPT used to return the exact data from NYT, and "next paragraph" could then be used to get the following ones). Even if this has been fixed, it still proves that ChatGPT encodes…

If it had exact copies they would have showed it could recall the 8th paragraph or something. Even google and the nyt release the first paragraph for free.

They say that asking for "next paragraph" used to return the next paragraph up until the whole article had been returned.

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

#860

Post by hatenberg »

paledot wrote: post #846
dchichkov wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Transformative" seems to fit a lot more that "Derivative". On the other hand, it's understandable why NYT is worried. OpenAI itself says that occupations like: Writers and Authors, Web and Digital Interface Designers, News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists, Proofreaders and Copy Markers are "90-100% exposed" to what OpenAI is building.

We should all be worried about that. If journalism is replaced with AI, truth is replaced with the AI hallucination du jour.

It’s already done. it’s not the future.
Post reply on HN