While copyright laws are ancient and outdated - and probably should be reformed or removed altogether - this lawsuit might be entertaining.
NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
891–900 of 921 posts
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#892Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do CliffNotes, Wikipedia, etc. substantially impact the market for the original work? Yes. For example, Wikipedia cites many research journals that otherwise are available only by subscription. Prior to Wikipedia, gated information centers were the norm.
You are answering the wrong question. The question was NOT whether it spreads information from the articles to people who wouldn't have paid for it. The question was whether it suppresses sales of the articles to people who otherwise might have paid for it. That's a more complicated question of fact. Some people now read Wikipedia and won't buy the article. Some people encounter the reference on Wikipedia and decide…
I thought the question would be how it does this. If it can write NYT articles because it read them it has to arrive at the exact same words in the same sequence. Wikipedia has to copy and paste to achieve the same. So maybe the question actually asked does not apply.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#893Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do other things to make money and continue to make art for it's own sake. If you get to the point that others want your art you get commissions. Just like most artists in the current system.
Alright, so then you're NOT going to pay artists for their labor? In the current system, artists might work for many years on a single work, or work many years perfecting their craft before anyone wants to pay for their work. Copyright gives them a way to earn money in the future that compensates them for the work they did in the past. It incentivizes creativity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think copyright is perfect…
Unfortunately, it’s hard to explain these things to techies who only see the world in their one-sided startupy way. The fact that there’re starving creatives who have already been massively marginalized by the likes of Spotify of this world, means nothing to these tech workers who only see everything as numbers, or a “business model” to “validate”.
(full disclosure, I’m a techie who’s gradually woken up to the idea that the tech might just be the most abused way to exploit people)
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#894If you forget about the LLM aspect, and simply build a product out of (legally) scraped NYT articles, is that fair use? Let's say I host these, offer some indexing on it, and rewrite articles. Something like, summarise all articles on US-UK relationships over past 5 years. I charge money for it, and all I pay NYT is a monthly subscription fee. To keep things simple, let's say I never regurgitate chunks of verbatim NY…
> If you forget about the LLM aspect, and simply build a product out of (legally) scraped NYT articles, is that fair use? That's not a good question. If I look out of my window and see my neighbor go to the shop, that's fine. If I use cameras and track everybody I see on the street and put them in a database, then that's problematic and illegal in many places. Logic does not necessarily apply when scaling is involved…
> If I use cameras and track everybody I see on the street and put them in a database, then that's problematic and illegal in many places.
Afaik not illegal in the US. You put a camera on your own private property (window), use it to record what’s happening in a public space (the street outside), and then store that data in a database (that other people can presumably access). Unless I am missing something, this scenario is perfectly legal in the US.
Inbefore I get hit with “not every country is like that at all,” NYT is based in the US and the lawsuit is filed in the US. So how a bunch of other countries deal with similar issues shouldn’t really have as much bearing on this specific case.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#895Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The state, through taxes. It's a public good after all.
So you want someone like Trump to control the media?
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#896Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#897Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should all be worried about that. If journalism is replaced with AI, truth is replaced with the AI hallucination du jour.
Most of the modern news are hallucinations and post-truths.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#898Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We haven't printed life, that would be a tremendous accomplishment. Sure we have, and in multiple different senses. The ones which matters here are cell culture, which is nowhere near the fanciest bar that's been surpassed in this field, and tissue culture which is somewhat harder but the reason why I recon it's at the Apple 1 level is that a small number of experimentalists are messing around with it using expensi…
> Sure we have, and in multiple different senses. No. That isn't printing life, that is taking already living cells, priming and transforming them into something useful. Regardless, I'd count it if we could make an entire living organism this way, but we cant. Creating a working organ is no doubt amazing, and proof that this technology is worth pursuing, but it isn't "printing life" any more than producing life savin…
> No. That isn't printing life, that is taking already living cells, priming and transforming them into something useful.
Which is absolutely sufficient for the usage I described upthread. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's mandatory for the point I was making, as — fun though bio-printed werewolves, dragons, and fae would be — my point only works if you get humans out of the process rather than some other species. A bioprinted horse is probably slightly harder than a bioprinted human, but the latter isn't getting any squatting rights.
I could've linked to work on synthetic genomes and nucleotides to give evidence for lower-level creation of live, but they don't matter for the same reason:
My point is that there's a pathway heading off into the distance, and somewhere in the distance but before the horizon can be found bio-printed humans with all the same moral issues we're now just beginning to taking seriously thanks to AI being conversational, and if we had something completely customised, that's cool and all, but it doesn't make anyone go "oh, they're people" the way a humanoid body with human DNA getting off a table saying "hello, nice to meet you" does.
> In your example you are talking about being able to bioprint a person(they have to be a person to have that right) to squat a property. Bio printing an organ isn't an example of that, it's not even close. Saying that we are anywhere near being able to print a human to squat a property is pretty ridiculous.
I wrote "an entity fully 3D printed out of tissue […] is a way off, but it's foreseeable" and compared bio-printing today to a nearly 50 year old computer, and one of my references was a link to a youtube channel where someone is attempting to do a small-scale prototype thing along these lines with a handful of organs made from mouse cells grown in his own lab (and mouse cells rather than human because of the disease risk not because something magic happens with human cells). You're mixing up what I think is foreseeable with what I say already exists, and using the nonexistence of what I think can be foreseen to argue against what does exist.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#899Fair use is something Wikipedians dance around a fair amount. It also meant I did a lot of reading about it. It’s a four part test. Let’s examine it thusly: 1. Transformative. Is it? It spits out informative text and opinion. The only “transformation” is that its generative text. IMO that’s a fail. 2. Nature of the work - it’s being used commercially. Given it’s being trained partially on editorial, that’s creative e…
You're getting mixed up. When applying the four factors, you need to individually separate all the uses. So you would need to repeat the fair use test for every alleged type of infringement. This means that the scraping from the public internet to OpenAI's dataset storage cluster is one instance where the full analysis of the 4 must take place, then the training itself, so another full analysis, then the distribution…
Why so? From the point of view of the company alleging damage the separation of processes is irrelevant. It all leads to massive copyright infringement.
It is not the NYT making the claim of Fair Use, it is OpenAI.
Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances
#900Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. Copyright should be abolished. All intellectual work is information, information is just bits and bits are just numbers. It's quite simply delusional to believe you can own numbers in the 21st century, the age of information and ubiquitous globally networked pocket supercomputers. This is just a felony contempt of business model issue. Computers invalidated their business models and they're doing ev…
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?
The market at large will determine that. If people value cheap AI generated images more than talented human curated art then that's what it will be. If a market exists to buy unique pieces where an artist put brush to canvas and priced their work at $1000 instead of the cheap $10 poster that can be mass produced then thats what it will be. If no one wants to pay $1000 for your unique piece, then the market has spoken and your art is not worth that much. Like everything else, an equilibrium ill be reached. Good artists will be fine. The other 99% of self declared artists will fade away into obscurity.