OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by HillRat » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:24 PM UTC

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…

As it is, this is a bullshit document, which I'm sure their lobbyists know; OSTP is authorized to "serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government," and has no statutory authority to regulate anything, let alone preempt state law. In the absence of any explicit Congressional legislation to serve to federally preempt state regulation of AI, there's nothing the White House can do. (In fact, other than export controls and a couple of Defense Production Act wishlist items, everything in their "proposal" is out of the Executive's hands and the ambit of Congress.)

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

#192

Post by 1shooner » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:25 PM UTC

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…

Underlying this perspective is the assumption that this is a uni-lineal race, and the end of that race must be arrived at first, and what lies at the end of that race is in the common good. There is no evidence for any of this.

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

#193

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:25 PM UTC

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?

owning a copy and learning the information is not the same. you can learn 2+2=4 from a book, but you no longer need that book to get that answer. each year in school, I was issued a book for class, learned from it, returned the book. I did not return the learning.

musicians can read the sheet music and memorize how to play it, and no longer need the music. they still have the information.

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

#194

Post by gjsman-1000 » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:27 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #188

I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies. This seems to be a thorny dilemma.

Welcome to the internet; where the only way to prevent it (considering 40% of internet traffic is automated) is to use DRM, with accessibility tools provided by client-side AI; or to create national internets with strong firewalls only allowing access to countries we have treaties with. That’s the future at this rate, and it sucks. (The status quo also sucks.)

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

#195

Post by 93po » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:27 PM UTC

crorella wrote: post #47

If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.

i really don't understand this argument. at which point is it violating copyright versus an intelligence learning and making content the same way as humans?

it was living cells, but they worked as transistors, would it be ok?

it was whole-brain emulation on silicon transistors, would it be ok?

it was a generative AI similar to what we have today, but 100x more sentient and self aware, is that ok?

if you locked a human in a room with nothing but tolkien books for 20 years, then asked them to write a fantasy novel, is that ok?

All art is built on learning from previous art. I don't understand the logic of it being a computer so suddenly now it's wrong and bad. I also don't understand general support of intellectual property when it overwhelmingly benefits the mega wealthy and stifles creative endeavors like nothing else. You art isn't less valuable just because a computer makes something similar, in the same way it's not less valuable if another human copies your style and makes new art in your style.

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

#196

Post by voytec » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:29 PM UTC

sega_sai wrote: post #22

dchichkov wrote: post #8

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..

This is basically "allow us to steal others' IP". It's hard not to treat Altman like a common thief.

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

#197

Post by api » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:30 PM UTC

svilen_dobrev wrote: post #115

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…

> ask for regulation then ask for exempt That's exactly what has been happening: Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397

OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory capture.

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

#198

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:30 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #96

ben_w wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the extent that this is how libraries function, yes. The part of that which doesn't apply is "print copies", at least not complete copies, but libraries often have photocopiers in them for fragments needed for research. AI models shouldn't do that either, IMO. But unlimited complete copies is the mistake the Internet Archive made, too.

I missed the part where OpenAI got library cards for all the libraries in the world. Is having a library card a requirement for being hired over there?

I missed the part where we throw away rational logic skills

Have you never been to a public library and read a book while sitting there without checking it out? Clearly, age is a factor here, and us olds are confused by this lack of understanding of how libraries function. I did my entire term paper without ever checking out books from the library. I just showed up with my stack of blank index cards, then left with the necessary info written on them. Did an entire project on tracking stocks by visiting the library and viewing all of the papers for the days in one sitting rather than being schmuck and tracking it daily. Took me about an hour in one day. No library card required.

Also, a library card is ridiculously cheap even if you did decide to have one.

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

#199

Post by kweingar » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:31 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #161

crorella wrote: post #47

If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.

But who should pay? The model developers? Training models is a cost center. And what about open source AI, should we legislate it out of existence? How about the AI providers? they operate on thin margins, and make just cents a million tokens. If one provider is too expensive, users quickly switch. Maybe the users? Users derive the lion share of benefits from AI. But those benefits are hard to quantize. Maybe a blank…

> The most creative part of internet ignores copyright royalties. From open source, to wikipedia, open scientific publication and even social networks, if everyone demanded royalties none of them would be possible.

Notably, in all of these cases the people involved consent to participating.

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

#200

Post by logsr » Thu, Mar 13, 2025, 7:31 PM UTC

binarymax wrote: post #27

sega_sai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..

Yeah it’s crazy. I also suspect they might not be confident in their defense from the NYT lawsuit - if they’re found in fault then it’s going to be trouble.

It is hard to see how a court could decide that copyright does not apply to training LLMs without completely collapsing the entire legal structure for intellectual property.

Conceptually, AI basically zeros out existing IP, and makes the AI the only IP that has any value. It is hard to imagine large rights holders and courts accepting that.

The likely outcome is that courts rule against LLM creators/providers and they eventually have to settle on licensing fees with large corporate copyright holders similar to YouTube. Unlike YouTube though, this would open up LLM companies to class action lawsuits from the general public, and so it could be a much worse outcome for them.