31–40 of 921 posts
I read a NYT article and publish a summary of facts that I learned: totally legit. Train a model on NYT text that outputs a summary of facts that it learned: OMG literally murder.
Also remember copyright laws was not there in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow they want to kill it. I wonder if we've just lived through the golden Napster era of LLMs.
Just train on NYT articles no longer in copyright. We may be better for it.
I've been arguing since ChatGPT came out that LLMs should fall under fair use as a "transformative work". I'm not a lawyer and this is just my non-expert opinion, but it will be interesting to see what the legal system has to say about this.
Suit claims that GPT reproduced passages from NYT almost verbatim.
This tired 'fair use' excuses from AI bros whilst the GPT has reproduced the article text verbatim, word for word and it being monetized without the permission from the copyright holder and source (NYT) is an obvious copyright violation 101. Full stop.
Again, just like Getty v. Stability, this copyright lawsuit will end in a licensing deal. Apple played it smart with their choice with licensing deals to train their GPT [0]. But this time, OpenAI knew they could get a license to train on NYT articles but chose not to.
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2023/12/22/apple-wants-to-train-its-ai-w...
Companies that have content all see dollar signs. NYT won't mind if you use their content to train LLMs - as long as they get a commission. Reddit will shut down their free API and make you pay to get training content. Discord is going to be selling content for AI training too - if they haven't already done so. Twitter is doing it. They didn't care before because LLMs were just experiments. Now we're talking trillion…
"They" also include the people working there. Why someone work with full time writing articles should give the work for free just let someone to train it and make money out of it as a consequence?
They are not giving it out "for free", in fact they're being paid by their employer to write these articles. Moreover, the writers themselves stand noth' to gain from their past writings financially as they don't belong to the ownership structure of the business.
I read a NYT article and publish a summary of facts that I learned: totally legit. Train a model on NYT text that outputs a summary of facts that it learned: OMG literally murder.
I've been arguing since ChatGPT came out that LLMs should fall under fair use as a "transformative work". I'm not a lawyer and this is just my non-expert opinion, but it will be interesting to see what the legal system has to say about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suit claims that GPT reproduced passages from NYT almost verbatim.
Precisely. This tired 'fair use' excuses from AI bros whilst the GPT has reproduced the article text verbatim, word for word and it being monetized without the permission from the copyright holder and source (NYT) is an obvious copyright violation 101. Full stop. Again, just like Getty v. Stability, this copyright lawsuit will end in a licensing deal. Apple played it smart with their choice with licensing deals to tr…
the purpose and character of the use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Stability took the easy way out because they didn't have billions of dollars to play around with and Microsoft to back them. Let's see what OpenAI does but calling everyone who disagrees with your naive interpretation of fair use "AI bros" is doing everyone a disservice.
I read a NYT article and publish a summary of facts that I learned: totally legit. Train a model on NYT text that outputs a summary of facts that it learned: OMG literally murder.
If you can't copyright AI-generated pieces, then why would fair use apply to LLMs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s (the original is flash and has thus been consigned to the memory hole, so we are left with this poor-quality conversion)
36": 'however, the press as you know it has ceased to exist'
40": '20th-century news organizations are an afterthought; a lonely remnant of a not-too-distant past'
2'11": 'also in 2002, google launches google news, a news portal. news organizations cry foul. google news is edited entirely by computers'
5'13": 'the news wars of 2010 are notable for the fact that no actual news organizations take part. googlezon finally checkmates microsoft with a feature the software giant cannot match: using a new algorithm, googlezon's computers construct new stories, dynamically stripping sentences and facts from all content sources, and recombining them. the computer writes a new story for every user'
5'55": 'in 2011 the slumbering fourth estate awakes to make its first and final stand. the new york times company sues googlezon, claiming that the company's fact-stripping robots are a violation of copyright law. the case goes all the way to the supreme court'
they didn't get the details exactly right, but overall the accuracy is astounding
however, that may be a hyperstition artifact in this timeline
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPIC_2014 (i thought epic 2014 might be the only flash video to hae a wikipedia article about it, but then i looked and found five others)