2 ms·
I think it's the most natural way it would happen. Pit powerful interests (publishers) against powerful interests (Microsoft/ClosedAI). The only surprising thin
by throwaway290 3y ago
I think it's the most natural way it would happen. Pit powerful interests (publishers) against powerful interests (Microsoft/ClosedAI). The only surprising thing is it's taking publishers so long to notice this fresh abuse of copyright at grand scale will cost them.
- gmerc 3y agoWhich is why OpenAIs GTM strategy involves the biggest players in each industry. That said, the outcome is unlikely - we have trained AI for more than a decade as ‘fair use’ at this point, it’s the application of the technology that is shifting the perspective, nor the act of training. Every computer vision system in the world is trained on mostly public data for example. Furthermore, the LLMs purpose is not to generate news so NYT will have to argue about the value of archive data. Many jurisdictions have thresholds of how much of an original work contributes to the derivative before it would be considered not fair use or plagiarism. Given the size of the datasets - good luck.
- throwaway290 3y ago> we have trained AI for more than a decade as ‘fair use’ at this point Fair use is about use. Spellchecking ML, search engine ML, etc. all different than ML that produces content.