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

391–400 of 845 posts

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

#391

Post by samstave »

Terr_ wrote: post #380
samstave wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - I mean the accessibility to the information and blatant use of power whereby we always knew it existed, but now we can tabulate and analyze it.

> now we can tabulate and analyze Very doubtful: The current "AI" hype craze centers on LLMs, and they don't do math. If anything they capabilities favor the other side, to obfuscate and protect falsehoods.

>>favor the other side, to obfuscate and protect falsehoods.

Unless they delete the Internet Archive of such info?

>>*and they don't do math.*

Have you ever considered the "Math of Politics"

Yeah - they do that just fine

((FYI -- Politics == Propaganda.. the first iteration of models is CHAT == Politics...

They do plenty of "Maths"))

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

#393

Post by paulddraper »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #301
paulddraper wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the broader discussion... You cannot legally photocopy copy an entire book even if you own a physical copy. Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal argument or case law to support that.

I believe the post you are replying to is suggesting the copy is made by hand, one word at a time.

I don't see how that would be different, as the meaningful material is text not images.

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

#394

Post by fc417fc802 »

paulddraper wrote: post #205
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Leaving aside the broader discussion... You cannot legally photocopy copy an entire book even if you own a physical copy. Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal argument or case law to support that.

At home? Without ever sharing it with anyone? I thought making backups of things that you personally own was protected, at least in the US. Could you elaborate on my apparent misunderstanding?

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

#395

Post by roenxi »

mystified5016 wrote: post #361
samstave wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No amount of exposure so far has had any effect on corruption. That AI will somehow improve this is just magical thinking.

It does have an effect; it is just a slow and grinding process. And people have screwy senses of proportion - like old mate mentioning insider trading. Of all the corruption in the US Congress insider trading is just not an issue. They've wasted trillions of dollars on pointless wars and there has never been a public accounting of what the real reasoning was. That sort of process corruption is a much bigger problem.

A great example - people forget what life was like pre-Snowden. The authoritarians were out in locked ranks pretending that the US spies were tolerable - it made any sort of organisation to resist impossible. Then one day the parameters of the debate get changed and suddenly everyone is forced to agree that encryption everywhere is the only approach that makes sense.

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

#396

Post by bionhoward »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #252
tdeck wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone say which of the LLM companies is the least "shady"? If I want to use an LLM to augment my work, and don't have a massively powerful local machine to run local models, what are the best options? Obviously I saw the news about OpenAI's head of research openly supporting war crimes, but I don't feel confident about what's up with the other companies.

The Claude people seem to be quite chill.

Claude has closed outputs and they train on your inputs. Just like OpenAI, Grok, and Gemini (API), mistral…

Who’s chill? Groq is chill

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

#397

Post by fc417fc802 »

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.

Except you said "You can't make archival copies." and didn't provide a citation. That's quite a different claim than "there exists no precedent clearly establishing your right or lack thereof to make archival copies".

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

#398

Post by triceratops »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #397
triceratops wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Except you said "You can't make archival copies." and didn't provide a citation. That's quite a different claim than "there exists no precedent clearly establishing your right or lack thereof to make archival copies".

Congress expressly granted archival rights for digital media. If they wanted to do the same for books they could've done so. There's no law or legal precedent allowing it.

Given all this "can't do it" is more probably accurate than "can do it". IANAL but it's not like the question is finely balanced on a knife's edge and could go either way.

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

#399

Post by triceratops »

dylan604 wrote: post #374
triceratops wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you had an app that checked those out and scanned it You mean...made a copy? Do you really not see the problem? > How they acquired the text would be a better thing to critique Well...yeah that's what I said in the comment that started this discussion branch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355147 This isn't about humans or robots reading books. It's that robots are allowed to violate copyright law to rea…

but you keep saying to read the books. there is no copyright violation to read a book. making copies starts to get into murky grounds, but does not immediately mean breaking the law.

You might be thinking of someone else.

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

#400

Post by nautilus12 »

hnlurker22 wrote: post #304
PeterStuer wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use what works for you. E.g. i'm very outspoken about my preferences for open llm practices like executed by Meta and Deepseek. I'm very aware of the regulatory caption and pulling up the ladder tactics by the "AI safety" lobby. However. In my own operations I do still rely on OpenAI because it works better than what I tried so far for my use case. That said, when I can find an open model based SaaS operator tha…

Why not vibe-code it using OpenAI

Just call it hacking, we don't need new names for coding without any forethought.
Post reply on HN