541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What crimes do you think have occurred here?
An answer in the form of a question: why don't OpenAI executives want to talk about whether Sora was trained on Youtube content? (I should reiterate that I actually wrote "serious, possibly criminal")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awfully familiar to the other South-African emerald mine inheritor tech mogul.
Please. Elon's track record to take tesla from concept car stage to current mass production levels and building SpaceX from scratch is hardly comparable to Altman's track record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NDAs don’t touch the copyright of your speech / written works you produce after leaving, they just make it breach of contract to distribute those words.
Following the legal defense of these companies, the employees wouldn’t be distributing any words. They’re distributing a model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you've trained a 16-bit ten billion parameter model on ten trillion tokens, then the mean training token changes 2/125 of a bit, and a 60k word novel (~75k tokens) contributes 1200 bits. It's up to you if that counts as "a handful" or not.
To be fair, OP raises an important question that I hope smart legal minds are pondering. In my view, they aren't looking for a "programmer answers about legal issue" response. Probably the right court might agree with their premise. What the damages or restrictions might be, I cannot speculate. Any IP lawyers here who want to share some thoughts?
As my not-legally-trained interpretation of the rules leads to me being confused about how traditional search engines aren't a copyright violation, I don't trust my own beliefs about the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is outputting the partially copyright-infringing works of their LLM for profit. How does that square?
You raise an interesting point. If more professional lawyers agreed with you, then why have we not seen a lawsuit from publishers against OpenAI?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-newspapers-sue-openai-copyr... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/09/openai-...
Some decided to make deals instead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs not being copyright laundromats This a brilliant phrase. You might as well put that into an Emacs paste macro now. It won't be the last time you will need it. And the OP is classic HN folly where programmer thinks laws and courts can be hacked with "this one weird trick".
But they can, just look at AirBnB, Uber, etc.
Uber is no longer subsidized (or even cheap) in most places, it's just an app for summoning taxis and overpriced snacks. AirBnB is underregulated housing for nomads at this point.
Your examples sorta prove the point - they didn't succeed in what they aimed at doing, so they pivoted until the law permitted it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then training a commercial model is done with the intent to not pay the original authors, how is that different?
It’s not done with the intent to infringe copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a child I used to watch a TV programme called Tomorrows World. On it they predicted these very same things in similar timeframes. That programme aired in the 1980's. Other than vested promises is there much to indicate it's close at all? Empty promises aside there isn't really any indication of that being likely at all.
are we living in the same world?????
It's better and quicker search at present for the area I specialise in.
It's not currently even close to being a x2 multiplier for me, it possibly even a negative impact, probably not but I'm still exploring. Which feels detached from the promises. Interesting but at present more hype than hyper. Also, it's energy inefficient so cost heavy. I feel that will likely cripple a lot of use cases.
What's your take?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clever, but the law is not a machine or an algorithm. Intent matters. Training an LLM with the intent of contravening an NDA is just plain . Everyone would still get sued anyway.
It is a classic geek fallacy to think you can hack the law with logic tricks.