21–30 of 231 posts
A tangential question...but does anyone know what software is used to generate legal documents that look like the PDF linked in the article? I’ve played with LaTeX templates a bit, but I seriously doubt law firms are futzing around with LaTeX for documents as complex as this. They must have some software that produces this formatting.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
I am sure OpenAI thought all this through, so I can only assume they said "fuck it let's pull an Uber and do this anyway." We are in for lots of interesting legal headlines
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.
...wait, isn't that false? legitimately asking.
or is it because it was done by a corporation that makes it illegal?
im thinking of how restaurants dont sing happy birthday and fair use restrictions etc
It’s okay, I’m sure everything is going to be fine when Microsoft and ChatGPT hot mic your next doctor appointment. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36498294
When this happened to Stable Diffusion, it was easy for me to consider it a necessary evil to progress humanity. When this happens to closedAI, it just seems like a profit grab. Not that it changes the legality of it. Just optics. Wonder if that matters in court.
First they came for the graphics artists, but I did not speak out because I was not a graphics artist. Then they came for the writers, but I did not speak out because I was not a writer. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me... well, except ChatGPT.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.
The rules of games cannot be copyrighted either. The artistic elements can be trademarked, but if ChatGpt merely explains the rules to you in different ways, that isn't infringement either.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.
Being non-commercial is not an automatic fair use exception. Being commercial does not preclude fair use. And rule concepts are not copyrightable, only the specific expression. Rules may have other IP protection, including patents.