3 ms·

I'd bet they win, but how do you possibly measure the dollar amount? If you strip out 100% of NYT content from GPT-4, I don't think you'd notice a difference. B

I'd bet they win, but how do you possibly measure the dollar amount? If you strip out 100% of NYT content from GPT-4, I don't think you'd notice a difference. But if you go domain by domain and continue stripping training data, the model will eventually get worse.

kfk 3y ago
Take estimated losses of the NYT from this "innovation" and multiply by 10^x where is "x" high enough to make tech companies stop and think before they break laws next time. That would be my approach at least.
- necroforest 3y ago
  which laws are broken exactly? it's not remotely settled law that "training an NN = copyright infringement"
  - noitpmeder 3y ago
    The training isn't the issue per se, it's the regurgitation of verbatim text (or close enough to be immediately identifiable) within a for-profit product. Worse still that the regurgitation is done without attribution.
  - LargeTomato 3y ago
    The legal argument, which I'm sure you are very well aware of, is that training a model on data, reorganizing, and then presenting that data as your own is copyright infringement.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - professor_x 3y ago
      I don't think OP is arguing in bad faith.The fact is it's unclear what laws this legal argument is supported by.
      - LargeTomato 3y ago
        Agreed, it is unclear. It's also a very commonly discussed issue with generative AI and there's been a significant amount of buzz around this. Is the NYT testing the legal waters? Maybe. Will this case set precedent? Yes. Is this a silly, random, completely unhinged case to bring? No.
    - munchler 3y ago
      Can you elaborate a bit more? That’s actually just a claim, not a legal argument. Copyright law allows for transformative uses that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Are LLM’s not transformative?
  - anamexis 3y ago
    Right, hence the lawsuit. They allege that the Copyright Act is the law that was broken.
  - zztop44 3y ago
    No, we’re seeing the first steps of it (maybe) becoming settled law.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
LordKeren 3y ago
I think the only feasible outcome of the NYT winning would be a royalty structure that would have OpenAI paying the NYT to access their work, including back payments
- dr_kiszonka 3y ago
  I am not saying that NYT will win, but I think it is more likely to win because it has many more supporters (including politicians, judges) than developers do.
WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
If developers didn't win over github / microsoft copilot, what makes you think NYT will win? There is something that doesn't smell right with microsoft, hopefully NYT will help expose it, wich i greatly doubt

kfk 3y ago

Take estimated losses of the NYT from this "innovation" and multiply by 10^x where is "x" high enough to make tech companies stop and think before they break laws next time. That would be my approach at least.

necroforest 3y ago
which laws are broken exactly? it's not remotely settled law that "training an NN = copyright infringement"
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  The training isn't the issue per se, it's the regurgitation of verbatim text (or close enough to be immediately identifiable) within a for-profit product. Worse still that the regurgitation is done without attribution.
- LargeTomato 3y ago
  The legal argument, which I'm sure you are very well aware of, is that training a model on data, reorganizing, and then presenting that data as your own is copyright infringement.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - professor_x 3y ago
    I don't think OP is arguing in bad faith.The fact is it's unclear what laws this legal argument is supported by.
    - LargeTomato 3y ago
      Agreed, it is unclear. It's also a very commonly discussed issue with generative AI and there's been a significant amount of buzz around this. Is the NYT testing the legal waters? Maybe. Will this case set precedent? Yes. Is this a silly, random, completely unhinged case to bring? No.
  - munchler 3y ago
    Can you elaborate a bit more? That’s actually just a claim, not a legal argument. Copyright law allows for transformative uses that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Are LLM’s not transformative?
- anamexis 3y ago
  Right, hence the lawsuit. They allege that the Copyright Act is the law that was broken.
- zztop44 3y ago
  No, we’re seeing the first steps of it (maybe) becoming settled law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

LordKeren 3y ago

I think the only feasible outcome of the NYT winning would be a royalty structure that would have OpenAI paying the NYT to access their work, including back payments

dr_kiszonka 3y ago
I am not saying that NYT will win, but I think it is more likely to win because it has many more supporters (including politicians, judges) than developers do.

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

If developers didn't win over github / microsoft copilot, what makes you think NYT will win? There is something that doesn't smell right with microsoft, hopefully NYT will help expose it, wich i greatly doubt