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

651–660 of 845 posts

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

#651

Post by srg0 »

nomilk wrote: post #592

Wonder how much the addition of copyrighted material affects how smart the resulting model is. If it's even 20% better LLM makers could be forced out of the US into jurisdictions that allow use of copyrighted data. I suspect most LLM users will ~always choose the smartest model.

> most LLM users will ~always choose the smartest model

Most LLM users will choose the cheapest model which is good enough.

I think that LLMs' performance is already "good enough" for a lot of applications. We're in the diminishing returns part of the curve.

There are two other concerns:

1. being able to run the model on trusted infrastructure locally (so some jerk won't turn it off on a whim, and the data will remain safe and comply with the local data protection laws and policies)

2. having good tools to create AI applications (like how easy it is to fine-tune it to customer needs)

> how much the addition of copyrighted material affects how smart the resulting model is

Copyrighted material improve the models, not by making it smart, but more factually correct, because it will be trained on reputable, reliable and up-to-date sources.

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

#652

Post by srg0 »

Palmik wrote: post #644
thedevilslawyer wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then any exception of this kind will harm their legitimate interests Pray tell what legitimate interest of the author is harmed by LLM's training on that work? No one is publishing the authors book.

What I think the parent meant is the interest to sell license to others to train on their data.

Exactly. Some copyright holders do license their work for AI training. It certainly happens in the music industry, but I don't see why texts would be any different. The exception would harm their business.

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

#653

Post by codedokode »

avgd wrote: post #642
danaris wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do they have to pay that? Where have they paid for each artwork from DeviantArt, paheal, etc that they trained Stable Diffusion on? Where have they paid for each independent blog post that they trained ChatGPT on? Yes, they've made a few deals with specific companies that host a large amount of content. That's a far cry from paying a fair price for each copyrighted work they ingest. Nearly everything on the Int…

Also, openai only started making deals (and mostly with news publishers) after the NYT lawsuit. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/14/nx-s1-5258952/new-york-times-... They didn't even consider doing this before. They still, as far as I know, haven't paid a dime for any book, or art beyond stock photography. Lawsuit is still ongoing, if openai loses it might spell doom for legal production and usage of LLMs as a whole. There…

> There isn't enough open, free data out there to make state of the art AI.

But there are models trained on legal content (like Wikipedia or StackOverflow). Also, no human needs to read millions of pirated books to become intelligent.

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

#654

Post by bambax »

The original link has apparently been changed to a content-free Yahoo post, for some reason only known to "moderators", which makes existing comments bizarre to read.

The original link pointed to this OpenAI document:

https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-u...

It contains this remarkable phrase:

> For innovation to truly create new freedoms, America’s builders, developers, and entrepreneurs—our nation’s greatest competitive advantage—must first have the freedom to innovate in the national interest.

I don't think people need "new freedoms". They need their existing freedoms, that are threatened everywhere and esp. by the new administration, to be respected.

And I would argue that America's greatest strength isn't their "builders"; it's its ability to produce BS at such a massive scale (and believe in it).

This OpenAI "proposal" is a masterpiece of BS. An American masterpiece.

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

#655

Post by menaerus »

someothherguyy wrote: post #646
thedevilslawyer wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good then that LLMs don't reproduce content.

They produce derivative works, which is also an exclusive right of a copyright holder.

If I derive my work using multiple sources, do all the copyright holders from these multiple sources have an exclusive right on my work? How otherwise would people build a knowledge on some topic and then apply that knowledge to build a product if not by reading bunch of (book) material and studying other similar products?

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

#656

Post by desdenova »

rightbyte wrote: post #570
tdeck wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be basic, but I found the Wikipedia article to be a good place to start: > An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[35] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but…

Would describe e.g. social democracy too though. And in practice most govs work like this.

Social democracy has historically been a precursor to fascism, so it makes sense.

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

#657

Post by deepsummer »

actionfromafar wrote: post #627
deepsummer wrote: post #619

I think an AI should be treated like a human. A human can consume copyright material (possibly after paying for it), but not reproduce it. I don't see any reason why the same can't be true for an AI.

Then, we should also put the AI in jail when it's breaking copyright laws. Or being an accessory to breaking copyright law.

An AI that's breaking copyright laws shouldn't be legal. So yes, it's kind of like putting it in jail.

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

#658

Post by rich_sasha »

thedevilslawyer wrote: post #634
austin-cheney wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyrights are more often used to defend large corporations than small creators. Are there numbers to this or is it empty conjecture? The reality is that resulting civil judgments apply the same regardless of owner size, which benefits small owners disproportionately to large owners with regard to windfall versus regular revenue. That is OpenAI’s principle concern: they don’t want to get sued into bankruptcy by num…

Copyright significantly powers revenue to corporations than individuals. Take music - this article show it's only 12% to individual musicians. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/music-artists-make-12-...

Surely copyright isn't the problem here. Without copyright, music industry could pay nothing for the music..? Just copy it with impunity.

Music industry, presumably, takes a bet on many musicians, and only a few make it. The revenues made by the successful ones effectively subsidise the unsuccessful ones.

Also if musicians are so widely screwed by the bad industry, why don't they create a cooperative agency that treats them well? There's enough money sloshing around in successful musicians' coffers.

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

#659

Post by rich_sasha »

codedokode wrote: post #611
glimshe wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyrights are more often used to defend large corporations than small creators. As long everybody has a level playing field and individuals benefit from weaker copyright laws, it might actually make the world a better place. I'm not arguing for the complete elimination of copyright protections, but today's laws, in particular copyright duration, are immoral. This is as good of a starting point as any assuming OpenAI…

In a billion dollar company can use pirated books for a business, should we allow them to use pirated software too? Do you think that requiring a company to pay for Windows license is "immoral"?

Well, just you try not to pay for ChatGPT...

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

#660

Post by torginus »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #491
userbinator wrote: post #470

I think there will be a huge change in public perception of copyright in general, as increasingly more people realise that everything is a derivative work.

Most people find the traditional explanation for copyright, "everything emerges from the commons and eventually returns to the commons, so artists and creators should be entitled to ownership of intellectual property for a limited amount of time." The problem becomes when "limited" is stretched from 5 years from moment of publishing, say, to an artist's life + 150 years. Most people find the former reasonable and the…

The problem is (almost) everything the US has a competitive edge on is based on copyright.

I'm in Europe, and during the past few weeks with these tariff upsets, I kinda realized the only thing I use or own that are US-made are computers and software.

If someone could hack into Apple, download the schematics of their chips and the source for their OS, and then post it on the internet, after which a third party could sell commercial products based on said data, there wouldn't be a software/hardware economy around of very long.

Post reply on HN