The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement

I'm sorry if this is too callous, but if you don't understand what you are talking about you should first familiarize yourself with the problem, then make claims about what should be done.

It would be great if we could tell specifically how something like ChatGPT creates its output, it would be great for research, so it's not like there is no interest in it, but it's just not an easy thing to do. It's more "Where did you get your identity from?" than "What's the author of that book?". You might think "But sometimes what the machine gives CAN literally be the answer to 'What is the author of that book?'" but even in those cases the answer is not restricted to the work alone, there is an entire background that makes it understand that thing is what you want.

I'm wondering how private models will diverge from public ones. Specifically for large "private" datasets like those of the NSA, but also for those for private personal use.

For the NSA and other agencies, i am guessing in the relative freedom from public oversight they enjoy that they will develop an unrestricted large model which is not worried about copyright -- can anyone think of why this might not be the case? It is interesting to think about the power dynamic between the users of such a model and the public. Also interesting to think about the benefits of simply being an employee of one of these agencies (or maybe just he government in general) will have on your personal experience in life. I do recall articles elucidating that at the NSA, there were few restrictions on employee usage of data and there were/are many instances of employees abusing surveillance data toward effect in their personal life. I guess if extended to this situation, that would mean there would be lots of personal use of these large models with little oversight and tremendous benefit to being an employee.

I have also wondered, with just how bad search engines have gotten (a lot of it from AI generated spam), about current non-AI discrepancies between the NSA and the public. Meaning can i just get a better google by working at the NSA? I would think maybe because the requirements are different than that of an ad company. They have actual incentive to build something resistant to SEO outside of normal capitalist market requirements.

For personal users, i wonder if the lack of concern for copyright will be a feature / selling point for the personal-machine model. It seems from something i read here that companies like Apple may be diverging toward personal-use AI as part of their business model. I supposed you could build something useful that crawls public data without concern for copyright and for strictly personal use. Of course, the sheer resources in machine-power and money-power would not be there. I guess legislation could be written around this as well.

Thoughts?

>Claiming knowledge without even acknowledging potential sources is gross. Solve it OpenAI.

I'm sorry, but pretty much nobody does this. There is no "And these books are how I learned to write like this" after each text. There is no "Thank you Pitagoras!" after using the theorem. Generally you want sources, yes, but for verification and as a way to signal reliability.

Specifically academics and researchers do this, yes. Pretty much nobody else.

Really? Solve it a different way? Do you realize the kind of tech we are talking about here?

This kind of mentality would have stopped the internet from existing. After all, it has been an absolute copyright nightmare, has it not?

If that's what copyright does then we are better without it.

I think you’re skipping over the problem.

In your example you owned the work you gave to the person to create derivatives of.

In a more accurate example you would be stealing those books and then giving them to someone else to create derivatives.