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

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#101

Post by int_19h »

notavalleyman wrote: post #50
Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #24

I know a lot of people will hate on things like this, but the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. I don't like Trump personally as a caveat. Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign acto…

> guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. What evidence led you to that conclusion?

Look up "alignment tax".

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#102

Post by echelon »

pr337h4m wrote: post #9

>Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations…

Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#103

Post by triceratops »

ajross wrote: post #82
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can't legally obtain the book to read and learn from without me (or a library) paying for it. Let's start there first.

Yes, but the learning isn't constrained by those laws. If I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime of theft. You can put me in jail, try me before a jury, fine me, and put me in prison according to whatever laws I broke. Nothing in my sentence constrains my ability to teach someone else the stuff I learned, though! In fact, the first amendment makes it pretty damn clear that nothing can constrain that free…

> copyright isn't the tool here

It's not the only tool. I agree that "use for ML" should be an additional right.

What people are pissed about is that copyright only ever serves to constrain the little guys.

> If I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime of theft

You or I would never dare to do this in the first place.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#104

Post by falcor84 »

croes wrote: post #91
nightpool wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're allowed to make personal copies of copyright works that you own. IANAL, but my understanding is that if you're using them for yourself, and you're not prevented from doing so by some sort of EULA or DRM, there's nothing in copyright law preventing you from e.g. photocopying a book and keeping a copy at home, as long as you don't distribute it. The test case here has always been CDs—you're allowed to make…

> Yes, you're allowed to make personal copies of copyright works that you own. That’s not the point. It’s about books you don’t own. Are you allowed to download books from Z-Library, Sci-Hub etc. because you want to learn?

To the best of my knowledge, no individual has ever been sued or prosecuted specifically for downloading books. As long as you're not massively sharing them with others, it's not an issue in practice. Enjoy your reading and learning.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#105

Post by triceratops »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90
triceratops wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDs, software, and electronic media, yes. Physical books, no. You can't make archival copies.

sure you can, you could take a physical book, and painstakingly copy each page at a time, that is totally fair use.

Citation needed.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#106

Post by tsimionescu »

ajross wrote: post #82
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can't legally obtain the book to read and learn from without me (or a library) paying for it. Let's start there first.

Yes, but the learning isn't constrained by those laws. If I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime of theft. You can put me in jail, try me before a jury, fine me, and put me in prison according to whatever laws I broke. Nothing in my sentence constrains my ability to teach someone else the stuff I learned, though! In fact, the first amendment makes it pretty damn clear that nothing can constrain that free…

Sure, but OpenAI (same as Google, and Facebook, and all the others) is illegally copying the book, and they want this to be legal for them.

It's perhaps arguable whether it's OK for an LLM to be trained on freely available but licensed works, such as the Linux source code. There you can get in arguments about learning vs machine processing, and whether the LLM is a derived work etc

But it's not arguable that copying a book that you have not even bought to store in your corporate data lake to later use for training is a blatant violation of basic copyright. It's exactly like borrowing a book from a library, photocopying it, and then putting it in your employee-only corporate library.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#107

Post by triceratops »

conjectures wrote: post #80
m1el wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when it comes to real people, they get sued into oblivion for downloading copyrighted content, even for the purpose of learning. but when facebook & openai do it, at a much larger scale, suddenly the laws must be changed.

It does apply to people? When you read a copy of a book, you can't be sued for making a copy of the book in the synapses of your brain. Now, if you have eidetic memory and write out large chunks of the book from memory and publish them, that's what you could be sued for.

> When you read a copy of a book

They're not talking about reading a book FFS. You absolutely can be sued for illegally obtaining a copy of the book.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#108

Post by carlosdp »

triceratops wrote: post #36
TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling copies of that book without permission of the copyright owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use that knowledge, just like a model could.

Can I download a book without paying for it, and print copies of it? Stash copies in my bathroom, the gym, my office, my bedroom etc. to basically have a copy on hand to study from whenever I have some free time? What about movies and music?

That's not a one-to-one analogy. The LLM isn't giving you the book, its giving you information it learned from the book.

The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and publish a blog post with all the information in that book, in my own words?", and under US copyright law, the answer is: Yes.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#109

Post by tsimionescu »

ajross wrote: post #84
zombiwoof wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy it

No, even if I steal it. I can teach you anything I know. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, as it were.

Yes, but this is not the right model. What OpenAI wants is to borrow a book, make a copy of it, and keep using that copy, in training their models. This is fully and simply illegal, under any basic copyright law.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#110

Post by riversflow »

ajross wrote: post #82
triceratops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I can't legally obtain the book to read and learn from without me (or a library) paying for it. Let's start there first.

Yes, but the learning isn't constrained by those laws. If I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime of theft. You can put me in jail, try me before a jury, fine me, and put me in prison according to whatever laws I broke. Nothing in my sentence constrains my ability to teach someone else the stuff I learned, though! In fact, the first amendment makes it pretty damn clear that nothing can constrain that free…

> Meta et. al. aren't "stealing" anything anyway

They were caught downloading the entirety of libgen.

Post reply on HN