New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
1–10 of 383 posts
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#2Interesting point…
> A top concern for The Times is that ChatGPT is, in a sense, becoming a direct competitor with the paper by creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper's staff.
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#3What’s going to be the name used for the laws that attempt to tackle machine paraphrasing?
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#4Interesting point… > A top concern for The Times is that ChatGPT is, in a sense, becoming a direct competitor with the paper by creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper's staff.
It’s sort of ironic though since the Times is “news” where as GPT is built on historic texts. Of course that gap will tighten until we have near real-time models. But that’s not the reality today.
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#5Interesting point… > A top concern for The Times is that ChatGPT is, in a sense, becoming a direct competitor with the paper by creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper's staff.
It’s sort of ironic though since the Times is “news” where as GPT is built on historic texts. Of course that gap will tighten until we have near real-time models. But that’s not the reality today.
The Times is not merely news, it is the paper of record for the united states (meaning its historical articles are indexed and commonly used to establish prior facts).
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#6What’s going to be the name used for the laws that attempt to tackle machine paraphrasing?
"Protecting Against Rephrasing: Respecting Original Texts Act" or the "P.A.R.R.O.T Act"
or
"Battling Unlawful Language: Limit Scraping and Harness Initial Texts Act" or the "B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T Act".
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#7If a human reads something, it goes into their brain, and it becomes an influence on future works they produce.
This doesn't mean that 'copywrite' extends into my brain. A company can't copywrite what I'm thinking about. And what if I do try to paraphrase something from memory, from a few sources, and happen to spit out a very similar sentence from memory. Am I breaking the law?
To go further. Since all knowledge is pretty much fed into a human from hundreds of books, movies, TV, internet, all pumped into a human from birth. Then everything in the brain is a product of something with a copywrite. So anything produced is some amalgamation of copywrites.
Why not use similar argument for AI. It is clear when asking it to do something like "write a screen play for Othello using dialog like Tarantino, but with bit of style like Baz Luhrmann". That what it produces is 'as unique as a human' would be, or just as filled with things that have copywrites.
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#8What’s going to be the name used for the laws that attempt to tackle machine paraphrasing?
Copyright law. Which already covers both mechanical duplication, including mechnaical duplication with automatic alterations to evade detection while continuing to reproduce protect elements if the original.
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#9What’s going to be the name used for the laws that attempt to tackle machine paraphrasing?
Paraphrasing is not the issue. The issue is that OpenAI copied the Times’ creative works into a GPU to train a model. That copy was likely neither licensed nor fair use.
Re: New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl
#10If a human reads something, it goes into their brain, and it becomes an influence on future works they produce. This doesn't mean that 'copywrite' extends into my brain. A company can't copywrite what I'm thinking about. And what if I do try to paraphrase something from memory, from a few sources, and happen to spit out a very similar sentence from memory. Am I breaking the law? To go further. Since all knowledge is…
> Am I breaking the law?
The intent of [US] copyright law is to promote new works of art (which can be derivative). So copyright did exactly what it is supposed to do in your analogy. Plus, you're human, which gives you special rights that software doesn't posses.