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

401–410 of 845 posts

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

#401

Post by fc417fc802 »

triceratops wrote: post #330
MostlyStable wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I was responding to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 which said it "absolutely is fair use". > The other commenters arguments...seem more convincing Because you (and I) want it to be fair use. But as I already said in my comment, it potentially fails one leg of fair use. Keeping your purchased physical copy of the book pristine and untouched while you read the photocopy allows you to later, after destroy…

> Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use?

No. I'd much rather pirate the epub followed by lobbying for severe IP law reform. (Of course by "lobby" I actually mean complain about IP law online.)

If there's no epub available then I guess it's time to get building. (https://linearbookscanner.org/)

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

#402

Post by only-one1701 »

pitaj wrote: post #376
only-one1701 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The Venetian Patent Statute of 19 March 1474, established by the Republic of Venice, is usually considered to be the earliest codified patent system in the world.[11][12] It states that patents might be granted for "any new and ingenious device, not previously made", provided it was useful. By and large, these principles still remain the basic principles of current patent laws.“ What are you talking about.

Patents and copyright are very different beasts.

As another commenter says, this is about IP, but even positing that copyright is somehow invalid because it’s new is incredibly obtuse. You know what other law is relatively new? Women’s suffrage.

I’m annoyed by arguments like the above because they’re clearly derived from working backwards from a desired conclusion; in this case, that someone’s original work can be consumed and repurposed to create profit by someone else. Our laws and society have determined this to be illegal; the fact that it would be con isn’t for OpenAI if it weren’t has no bearing.

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

#403

Post by MegaButts »

samstave wrote: post #391
Terr_ wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"))

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

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

#404

Post by only-one1701 »

only-one1701 wrote: post #402
pitaj wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents and copyright are very different beasts.

As another commenter says, this is about IP, but even positing that copyright is somehow invalid because it’s new is incredibly obtuse. You know what other law is relatively new? Women’s suffrage. I’m annoyed by arguments like the above because they’re clearly derived from working backwards from a desired conclusion; in this case, that someone’s original work can be consumed and repurposed to create profit by someone…

Also, a quick glance at the wikipedia page for "copyright" talks about the first law being put down and enforced in 1710. What are we even doing here?

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

#405

Post by greatpostman »

noosphr wrote: post #354
mattgreenrocks wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. Western tech needs the competition. They are very prone to navel-gazing simply because SV ended up being the location for tech once. Funny how they like to crow about free markets, while also running to daddy government when their position is threatened.

Competition can only work when there is variation between the entities competing. In the US right now you can have a death match between every AI lab, then give all the resources to the one which wins and you'd still have largely the same results as if you didn't. The reason why Deepseek - it started life as a HFT firm - hit as hard as it did is because it was a cross disciplinary team that had very non-standard skil…

Engineers at ai labs just come from prestigious schools and don’t have technical depth. They are smart, but they simply aren’t qualified to do deep technical innovation

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

#406

Post by hsuduebc2 »

Regulations were convenient to slow down competitors—you know, the ones you heavily lobbied for—it was all great. But now that you've done your part and others are finally catching up, suddenly it's all about easing restrictions to protect your lead? Beautiful.

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

#407

Post by Terr_ »

MegaButts wrote: post #403
samstave wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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"))

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say.

I worry I'm just trying too hard to make it make sense, and this is a TimeCube [0] situation.

The most-charitable paraphrase I can come up with it: "Bad people can't use LLMs to hide facts, hiding facts means removing source-materials. Math doesn't matter for politics which are mainly propaganda."

However even that just creates contradictions:

1. If math and logic are not important for uncovering wrongdoing, why was "tabulation" cited as an important feature in the first post?

2. If propaganda dominates other factors, why would the (continued) existence of the Internet Archive be meaningful? People will simply be given an explanation (or veneer of settled agreement) so that they never bother looking for source-material. (Or in the case of IA, copies of source material.)

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160112000701/http://www.timecu...

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

#408

Post by fc417fc802 »

triceratops wrote: post #398
fc417fc802 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Congress didn't explicitly disallow it either. You left that bit out. As such it comes down to interpretation of the existing law. We both clearly agree that doesn't (yet) exist.

> IANAL but it's not like the question is finely balanced on a knife's edge and could go either way.

I agree, but my interpretation is opposite yours. It seems fairly obvious to me that the spirit of the law permits personal copies. That also seems to be in line with (explicitly legislated) digital practices.

But at the end of the day the only clearly correct statement on the matter is "there's no precedent, so we don't know". I suppose it's also generally good advice to avoid the legal quagmire if possible. Being in the right is unlikely to do you any good if it bankrupts you in the process.

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

#409

Post by jgord »

noosphr wrote: post #290
fsndz wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeepSeek really shook them to their core. Now they go for regulatory capture. Such a huge disappointment. Open source AI will win: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/the-laymans-...

It's not just them. Everyone is scrambling. US tech, and western tech in general, is very culturally - and by this I mean in the type of coding people have done - homogeneous. The deep seek papers published over the last two weeks are the biggest thing to happen in IA since GPT3 came out. But unless you understand distributed file systems, networking, low level linear algebra, and half a dozen other fields at least t…

have you considered starting / joining a startup instead ?
Post reply on HN