5 ms·
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 la
by 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 agowhich laws are broken exactly? it's not remotely settled law that "training an NN = copyright infringement"
- noitpmeder 3y agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoAgreed, 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 agoCan 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 agoRight, hence the lawsuit. They allege that the Copyright Act is the law that was broken.
- zztop44 3y agoNo, we’re seeing the first steps of it (maybe) becoming settled law.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]