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

211–220 of 845 posts

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

#211

Post by throwway120385 »

HillRat wrote: post #191
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…

You mean there's nothing the White House can do under the rule of law. There's plenty the White House can do under the color of law.

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

#212

Post by hayst4ck »

echelon wrote: post #102
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.

Moat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power.

"Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers.

"We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell employees than "we need to be more anti-competitive."

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

#213

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

93po wrote: post #195
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 huma…

> I don't understand the logic of it being a computer so suddenly now it's wrong and bad

My answer to this is one I've written already before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42720749

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

#215

Post by nunSpQyeJR »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #202
dylan604 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you still need to buy the sheet music first, all the AI Labs used pirated materials to learn from. There's two angles to the lawsuits that are getting confused - the largest one from the book publishers (Sarah Silverman et al) attacked from the angle that the models could reproduce copyrighted information. This was pretty easily quelled / RHLF'd out (used to be that if ChatGPT started producing lyrics a superviso…

Not only would the musician have to buy the sheet music first, but if they were going to perform that piece for profit at an event or on an album they'd need a license of some sort.

This whole mess seems to be another case of "if I can dance around the law fast enough, big enough, and with enough grey areas then I can get away with it".

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

#216

Post by [deleted] »

affinepplan wrote: post #176
ivanmontillam wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.

yeah this sounds like it'll be reliably enforced for sure

[deleted]

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

#217

Post by observationist »

triceratops wrote: post #155
observationist wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems reasonably within the bounds described by fair use, but nobody's ever tested that particular constellation of factors in a lawsuit, so there's no precedent - hand copying a book, that is. 17 U.S.C. § 107 is the fair use carveout. Interestingly, digitizing and copying a book on your own, for your own private use, has also not been brought to court. Major rights holders seem to not want this particular fair us…

> there's no precedent - hand copying a book, that is Thank you! I had looked this up myself last week, so I knew this. I had long believed, as GP does, that copying anything you own without distribution is either allowed or fair use. I wanted GP to learn as I did.

For reference, here's the US legal code in question:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The spirit seems apparent, but in practice it's been used by awful people to destroy lives and exploit rent from artists and authors in damn near tyrannical ways.

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

#218

Post by MostlyStable »

triceratops wrote: post #174
jncfhnb wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. The fair use criteria considers whether it is commercial in nature (in this case it is not) and the “ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” for which a personal copy of a personally owned book is non existent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 You would get laughed at by the legal system t…

> It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. There's no legal precedent for this. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042 > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work A copyright holder's lawyer would argue that having and using a photocopy of a book keeps the original from wearing out. This directly affects the potential market for the wor…

>No legal precedent

Why do you interpret this to mean "absolutely can't do this"? "No precedent" seems to equally support both sides of the argument (that is, it provides no evidence; courts have not ruled). The other commenters arguments on the actual text of the statute seem more convincing to me than what you have so far provided.

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

#219

Post by mirekrusin »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #203
jlev wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron Swartz, cofounder of Reddit and inventor of RSS and Markdown, was hounded to death by an overzealous prosecutor for downloading articles from JSTOR, with the intent to learn from them. He was charged with over a million dollars in fines and could have faced 35 years in prison. He and Sam Altman were in the same YC class. OpenAI is doing the same thing at a larger scale, and their technology actually reproduces…

I'm responding specifically to this sentence: > It's shameful that they are making claims that they aren't infringing creator's rights when they have scraped the entire internet. Scraping the Internet is generally very different from piracy. You are given a limited right to that data when you access it, and you can make local copies. if further use does something sufficiently non-copying, then creator rights aren't b…

Can you compress the internet including copyrighted material and then sell access to it?

At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes infringement?

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

#220

Post by InvidFlower »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #125
btreecat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think content creators want to be compensated for their work that's being used for commercial purposes. I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.

Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.

While that is cool in principal, I'm not sure how well it'd actually work in reality. First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights?

Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. That would cover a lot of the fundamental knowledge and processes. Then you could fine-tune on copyrighted data. That might actually make it easier to see how much influence on the final weights that content has, but is also would probably be a lot less influence. There's a big difference between a painting of an apple being the main contribution to the concept of "apple" in an image model, vs mention of that painting corresponding to a few weights that just reference a bunch of other concepts that were learned via open data.

Post reply on HN