Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 921 posts

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#301

Post by lotsofpulp »

Ntrails wrote: post #286
guhidalg wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but nothing worth having is free. NYT and other news outlets have to ultimately pay reporters to go out into the world and do the work. The reporters are not priests, and the NYT is not a church that lives off donations and tax exemptions. They need money to operate, and you may disagree with how they try to collect that money (paywall) but that doesn't solve their funding problem. How would you pay for news…

> How would you pay for news otherwise? You could subsidise news via "public service" style stipends. Much like having a government owned "independent" news service (eg the BBC) this comes with a high risk of corruption. Don't bite the hand that feeds and all that. You could implement a much lower friction non-recurring payment system. I'd be far more tempted to drop a little money on a fixed term (5 articles, 1 day,…

> Realistically, I am not paying for more than 1 long running sub. And there are > that number of solid outlets.

This is somewhat what Apple News+ works like, but I doubt most news orgs want to be held captive by Apple.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#302

Post by amelius »

Yizahi wrote: post #278
munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

Good comment, it was very funny to see how people desperately try to find moral justification for pirating media A but not B. "It's apples to oranges, you see, there are less letters in the NYT article than in the book and they are rendered differently, so it is ok to pirate their work. I did nothing wrong!" :)

There's no way to get your money back if you didn't like the content. If they don't want their articles to be read for free then they should keep them out of my view. And certainly not use clickbaity headlines. Information can be copied and they should accept it, or change their business/distribution model.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#303

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

logicchains wrote: post #204
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #202

We developers like to pretend that LLM's are akin to humans and that they've been using things like NYTimes like humans as educational material. But they are not. It's much simpler, proprietary writing is now integrated into the source code of OpenAI, it would be as if I would copy parts of other propriety code and copy paste it into my own codebase. Claiming copy paste is a natural evolving process of millions of ye…

> it would be as if I would copy parts of other propriety code and copy paste it into my own codebase. It's not copy-pasted; it's compressed in a lossy manner. Even GPT4 has nowhere near enough memory to store the entirety of its training data in a non-lossy compression format. Just likes how humans compress the information we read.

You're kind of proving my comment pretending they are akin to a human brain instead of an evolved form of statistics mixed with code, aka transformer model.

Let alone that it's a centralised model that's being distributed for a fee.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#304

Post by dleeftink »

visarga wrote: post #137
groceryheist wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of unique values in the bloom filter will go up ~exponentially with n. So to control the false positive rate the bloom filter has to grow.

At large enough ngram size there would be very few collisions. You can take for example this text and try in Google with quotes, it won't find anything matching exactly. I tested this 6-gram "it won't find anything matching exactly", no match. Almost anything we write has never been said exactly like that before.

> it won't find anything matching exactly

This approach is probably inadequate. In my line of (NLP) research I find many things have been said exactly many, many times over.

You can try this out yourself by grouping and counting strings using the many publically available Bigquery corpora for various substring lengths and offsets, e.g. [0-16]; [0-32]; [0-64] substring lengths at different offsets.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#305

Post by afavour »

bongripper wrote: post #294
afavour wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a difficult problem with no great answers. If you want news to be free at the point of delivery you want public service news agencies. But that means they’re owned by the government… who are frequently the target of critical reporting.

That's not true. You can have Independent public broadcasting that is not owned by the government and is reporting critically on it.

It’s still a difficult tension. The government will always control the purse strings so independence is always going to come with conditions.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#306

Post by hef19898 »

lupusreal wrote: post #296
hef19898 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me all of 5 minutes to cancel my digital NYT subscription from the following month onward. No idea what you are talking about.

Why did it take you five minutes instead of twenty seconds? It should be as simple as clicking on the link to your profile then clicking unsubscribe, mere seconds not minutes. Assuming you just said five minutes figuratively... Do you live in California or some other legal jurisdiction that forces them to play nice? Did you subscribe through some other company, like Apple? Horror stories about unsubscribing from the…

International one, as szraight forward as it could be: go to profile, go to manage subscription, cancel subscription, answer question why if you want, confirm cancellation, done for date depending on subscription.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#307

Post by furyofantares »

groceryheist wrote: post #41

The suit demonstrates instances where ChatGTP / Bing Copilot copy from the NYT verbatim. I think it is hard to argue that such copying constitutes "fair use". However, OAI/MS should be able to fix this within the current paradigm: Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF. However, the suit goes far beyond claiming that such copying violates their copyright: "Unauthorized copying of Times Works without p…

> Just learn to recognize and punish plagiarism via RLHF.

I'm not sure how your proposal would actually work. To recognize plagiarism during inference it needs to memorize harder.

Kinda funny if it works though. We'd first train them to copy their training data verbatim, then train them not to.

That is how it works, right? They're trained to copy their training data verbatim because that's the loss function. It's just that they're given so much data that we don't expect this to be possible for most of the training data given the parameter count.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#308

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

Historically newspapers leaned more on competition law than copyright, because their pages are supposed to be filled with non-copyrightable facts.[1] Copying part, but not all, of a factual article, significantly after the relevant event, was considered to be a promotion (not unfair competition) and a nice thing to do for the journalists. Things change, people lose sight of the original principles.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v...

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#309

Post by phpisthebest »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

Largely because "news" aka facts is not and should not be copyrightable, so while the style, and exact format of the article may be copyrightable, the facts contained within are not.

This makes a news story copyright murky in the eyes of wider society unlike a clearly 100% creative work like a TV Show or Movie.

Further the news themselves self cannibalize, how many stories are just rewrites of stories from other outlets? why it is OK for the Washington Post to copy the NY times, but not ok for OpenAI or Archive.org?

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#310

Post by threeseed »

lodovic wrote: post #88
mynegation wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suit claims that GPT reproduced passages from NYT almost verbatim.

I'm sure the NYT uses dictionaries, encyclopaedias and style books verbatim as well. And they don't invent the facts they write about. As journalists they are compiling and passing along other knowledge. You usually don't get a piece of their income when a journalist quotes you verbatim (people usually don't get paid for interviews).

NYT doesn't reproduce the contents of the dictionary or encyclopaedia.

And even if they did it will be fine because those sources allow for it.

The point is that OpenAI never asked NYT for permission to use their data.

Post reply on HN