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

OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

futurism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#71

Post by re-thc »

slowtrek wrote: post #14

So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators ( never ). If we hold our principles to OpenAI ( pay who you took from ), they will go bankrupt. So of course they are speaking in end-game language. To suggest the race is lost even before it starts is an incredible thing. How is it that we can theorize that the model would get better with more data, but we can't theorize that the busi…

> So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators (never)

Who is we? How do you know? Never is a strong word.

> If we hold our principles to OpenAI (pay who you took from), they will go bankrupt.

i.e. their business wasn't feasible to begin with? Sounds fine? What's wrong with them being bankrupt (if needed).

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#73

Post by raxxorraxor »

hagbard_c wrote: post #17

Yes, well, in a way they're right and I suspect everyone here knows it no matter how and mighty they might want act when commenting. When foreign (here 'Chinese') competition just ignores copyright laws while 'western' companies have to abide by them for every piece of data they use to train their models the former will have a clear advantage over the latter. This also happens to be how the USA acted in the 1800s [1]…

Plus in this case I don't even think it a copyright violation to analyze protected works. And even creating derivates of some form isn't, since that is the way any form of art works in the first place.

Sure, perhaps they would need a license to get the material, but I don't see how broken copyright laws will be of any help here.

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#74

Post by raxxorraxor »

slowtrek wrote: post #63
EdwardKrayer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. If there are methods to get creators paid, while ensuring unfettered access to all - it absolutely should happen. The legal system in America doesn't have a good track record of nuance, especially when nuance is necessary. My views come from the idea that the American legal system will either smite them into bankruptcy, or it will give them the precedent they need to exempt past violations, and carry on…

Nuance is needed So much so that your first reply froze me and made me think. This is not easy, it's absolutely in our nature to gate keep knowledge.

It isn't in our nature at all, on the contrary. It is if that knowledge is useful for strategic purpose like economic advantages, but it is an exception.

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#75

Post by swat535 »

EdwardKrayer wrote: post #57
basisword wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming this leads...somewhere. Currently, AI is not all that useful. And progress seems to be slowing, not accelerating.

You may not have found ways to make AI work for you in your workflows, but millions of others have. It's not perfect, but it's useful to everyone I know that has made a meaningful attempt to experiment, discarding the bad, and integrating the good.

Can you cite examples of these real world use cases that _millions_ of people have integrated in their workflows successfully on a day to day basis?

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#76

Post by JohnFen »

scoofy wrote: post #64
JohnFen wrote: post #15

What I don't understand is why this is always presented as a "race" that "we" have to win or else. It's just such a strange framing to me and every time I see it, it's presented as some sort of self-evident truth, but I don't think it's self-evident at all.

I mean, I do think we should want to win the race, the point is they want to keep all the money. You can literally just offer equity as compensation to "content providers" and we won't have any problems with liquidity issues on the development side, and people can still be compensated or opt out. OpenAI doesn't want to do that.

> I do think we should want to win the race

Why, though? I can understand the companies involved wanting to be first in order to maximize their profit, but why should that matter to anybody else?

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#77

Post by addandsubtract »

re-thc wrote: post #71
slowtrek wrote: post #14

So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators ( never ). If we hold our principles to OpenAI ( pay who you took from ), they will go bankrupt. So of course they are speaking in end-game language. To suggest the race is lost even before it starts is an incredible thing. How is it that we can theorize that the model would get better with more data, but we can't theorize that the busi…

> So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators (never) Who is we? How do you know? Never is a strong word. > If we hold our principles to OpenAI (pay who you took from), they will go bankrupt. i.e. their business wasn't feasible to begin with? Sounds fine? What's wrong with them being bankrupt (if needed).

OpenAI has become "too big to fail". They obviously can't face any meaningful repercussions, as that goes against the established form of capitalism in the US. Instead, they have to find creative ways to allow (or at least not sentence) OpenAI to any wrongdoing. Shareholders über alles.

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#78

Post by scoofy »

JohnFen wrote: post #76
scoofy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I do think we should want to win the race, the point is they want to keep all the money. You can literally just offer equity as compensation to "content providers" and we won't have any problems with liquidity issues on the development side, and people can still be compensated or opt out. OpenAI doesn't want to do that.

> I do think we should want to win the race Why, though? I can understand the companies involved wanting to be first in order to maximize their profit, but why should that matter to anybody else?

Uhh... because nations should care about their economic output? And want to maximize that output all things being equal?

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#79

Post by ls612 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #37
xyzzyz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exact same way OpenAI does: by scraping data, ingesting it, processing it, incorporating it into its proprietary system, and using it to serve responses to queries. This is not to say that I thing that any of this is wrong. I think that if what Google or OpenAI do is illegal, then the law is wrong, not Google or OpenAI.

Search engines are an index to a first approximation. I realize they sometimes hoist a thesis sentence or two up to their page, but it feels substantially different than automating derivative works for sale.

what is the substantive difference between googling "filter records in dataframe by regular expression in Julia" vs asking ChatGPT/Grok/Claude the same thing (to name a totally non-random example I've been working with lately)?

Re: OpenAI Says It's "Over" If It Can't Steal All Your Copyrighted Work

#80

Post by mixmastamyk »

ls612 wrote: post #79
mixmastamyk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search engines are an index to a first approximation. I realize they sometimes hoist a thesis sentence or two up to their page, but it feels substantially different than automating derivative works for sale.

what is the substantive difference between googling "filter records in dataframe by regular expression in Julia" vs asking ChatGPT/Grok/Claude the same thing (to name a totally non-random example I've been working with lately)?

Not much difference for uncopyrightable facts, but ask for a portrait, report, or whole program, and you get closer to a problem. There is precedent around derivatives called "fair use," that can maybe give some guidance.

Oracle lost the API copyright case, which might also be an important precedent.

Post reply on HN