27 ms·

I don't think they're looking to prevent the inevitable, but rather see a target with a fat wallet from which a lot of money can be extracted. I'm not saying th

I don't think they're looking to prevent the inevitable, but rather see a target with a fat wallet from which a lot of money can be extracted. I'm not saying this in a negative way, but much of the "this is outrageous!" reaction to AI hasn't been about the building of models, but rather the realization that a few players are arguably getting very rich on those models so other people want their piece of the action.

dissident_coder 3y ago
If NYT wins this, then there is going to be a massive push for payouts from basically everyone ever…I don’t see that wallet being fat for long.
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  If they are determined to have broken the law then they should absolute be made to pay damages to aggrieved parties (now, determining if they did and who those parties are is an entirely unknown can of worms)
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  The data will have to become more curated. Exclusivity deals will probably become a thing too. Good data will be worth the money and hassle; garbage (or meh) data won't.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  If LLMs actually create added value and don't just burn VC money then they should be able to pay a fair price for the work of people they're relying upon. If your business is profitable only when you get your raw materials for free it's not a very good business.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    By that logic you should have to pay the copyright holder of every library book you ever read, because you could later produce some content you memorised verbatim.
    - password4321 3y ago
      > the copyright holder of every library book gets paid
    - nullindividual 3y ago
      Copyright holders do get paid for library copies, in the US.
      - exitb 3y ago
        You make it seem as if the copyright holder is making more money on a library book, than on one sold in retail, which does not appear to be the case in the US.
        willseth 3y ago
        The library pays for the books and the copyright holder gets paid. This is no different from buying a book retail, which you can read and share with family and friends after reading, or sell it, where it can be read again and sold again. The book is the product, not a license for one person to access the book.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - macNchz 3y ago
      The rules we have now were made in the context of human brains doing the learning from copyrighted material, not machine learning models. The limitations on what most humans can memorize and reproduce verbatim are extraordinarily different from an LLM. I think it only makes sense to re-explore these topics from a legal point of view given we’ve introduced something totally new.
      - whichfawkes 3y ago
        Human brains are still the main legal agents in play. LLMs are just a computer programs used by humans. Suppose I research for a book that I'm writing - it doesn't matter whether I type it on a Mac, PC, or typewriter. It doesn't matter if I use the internet or the library. It doesn't matter if I use an AI powered voice-to-text keyboard or an AI assistant. If I release a book that has a chapter which was blatantly copied from another book, I might be sued under copyright law. That doesn't mean that we should lock me out of the library, or prevent my tools from working there.
  - hhjinks 3y ago
    What is a fair price? The entire NYT library would be a fraction of a fraction of the training set (presumably).
    - morkalork 3y ago
      What if even though it's a small portion of the training data, their content has an outsized influence on the output being generated? A random NYT article about Donald Trump and a random Wikipedia article about some obscure nematode might be around the same share of training data but if 10,000x more users are asking about DJT than the nematode, what is fair? Obviously they'll need to pay royalties on the usage! /s
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bnralt 3y ago
    Imagine if tomorrow it was decided that every programmer had to pay out money for every single thing they went on the internet to learn about beyond official documentation, every Stack Overflow question they looked at, every question they went to a search engine to find. The amount of money was decided by a non-tech official who was in charge of figuring out how much of the money they earned was owed to the places they learned from. And people responded, "Well, if you can't pay up for your raw materials, then this just isn't a good business for you."
    - frakt0x90 3y ago
      Except that every stackoverflow post is explicitly creative commons: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
      - bnralt 3y ago
        So I suppose it would be the like saying that if you used Stack Overflow to find answers, all of the work you created using information from it would have to be explicitly under the Creative Commons license. You wouldn't even be able to work for companies who aren't using that license if some of your knowledge comes from what you learned on Stack Overflow. Used Stack Overflow to learn anything about programming? You're going to have to turn down that FAANG offer. And if you learned anything from videos/books/newsletters with commercial licenses, you would have to pay some sort of fee for using that information.
        jakeinspace 3y ago
        If your code contains verbatim copy-paste of entire blocks of non-trivial code lifted from those videos/books/newsletters with commercial licenses, then yes you would be liable for some licensing fees, at minimum.
  - 015a 3y ago
    Yup, and I think that'll quickly uncover the reality that LLMs do not generate enough value relative to their true cost. GPT+ already costs $20/month. M365 Copilot costs $30/user/month. They're already the most expensive B2B-ish software subscriptions out there, there's very little market room to add in more cost to cover payments to rightsholders.
halukakin 3y ago
If this is inevitable (and I'm not saying it's not), who will produce high quality news content?
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  AI. And, I fear, it will be good.
  - epc 3y ago
    Curious how AI gets the raw information if there are no reporters nor newspapers. Does AI go to meetings or interview politicians?
    - hcurtiss 3y ago
      I can certainly imagine email correspondence. Even audio interviews. You're right that it seems at least presently AI is less likely to earn confidences. But I don't know how far off the movie "Her" actually is.

dissident_coder 3y ago

If NYT wins this, then there is going to be a massive push for payouts from basically everyone ever…I don’t see that wallet being fat for long.

noitpmeder 3y ago
If they are determined to have broken the law then they should absolute be made to pay damages to aggrieved parties (now, determining if they did and who those parties are is an entirely unknown can of worms)
throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
The data will have to become more curated. Exclusivity deals will probably become a thing too. Good data will be worth the money and hassle; garbage (or meh) data won't.
alexey-salmin 3y ago
If LLMs actually create added value and don't just burn VC money then they should be able to pay a fair price for the work of people they're relying upon. If your business is profitable only when you get your raw materials for free it's not a very good business.
- logicchains 3y ago
  By that logic you should have to pay the copyright holder of every library book you ever read, because you could later produce some content you memorised verbatim.
  - password4321 3y ago
    > the copyright holder of every library book gets paid
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    Copyright holders do get paid for library copies, in the US.
    - exitb 3y ago
      You make it seem as if the copyright holder is making more money on a library book, than on one sold in retail, which does not appear to be the case in the US.
      - willseth 3y ago
        The library pays for the books and the copyright holder gets paid. This is no different from buying a book retail, which you can read and share with family and friends after reading, or sell it, where it can be read again and sold again. The book is the product, not a license for one person to access the book.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - macNchz 3y ago
    The rules we have now were made in the context of human brains doing the learning from copyrighted material, not machine learning models. The limitations on what most humans can memorize and reproduce verbatim are extraordinarily different from an LLM. I think it only makes sense to re-explore these topics from a legal point of view given we’ve introduced something totally new.
    - whichfawkes 3y ago
      Human brains are still the main legal agents in play. LLMs are just a computer programs used by humans. Suppose I research for a book that I'm writing - it doesn't matter whether I type it on a Mac, PC, or typewriter. It doesn't matter if I use the internet or the library. It doesn't matter if I use an AI powered voice-to-text keyboard or an AI assistant. If I release a book that has a chapter which was blatantly copied from another book, I might be sued under copyright law. That doesn't mean that we should lock me out of the library, or prevent my tools from working there.
- hhjinks 3y ago
  What is a fair price? The entire NYT library would be a fraction of a fraction of the training set (presumably).
  - morkalork 3y ago
    What if even though it's a small portion of the training data, their content has an outsized influence on the output being generated? A random NYT article about Donald Trump and a random Wikipedia article about some obscure nematode might be around the same share of training data but if 10,000x more users are asking about DJT than the nematode, what is fair? Obviously they'll need to pay royalties on the usage! /s
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bnralt 3y ago
  Imagine if tomorrow it was decided that every programmer had to pay out money for every single thing they went on the internet to learn about beyond official documentation, every Stack Overflow question they looked at, every question they went to a search engine to find. The amount of money was decided by a non-tech official who was in charge of figuring out how much of the money they earned was owed to the places they learned from. And people responded, "Well, if you can't pay up for your raw materials, then this just isn't a good business for you."
  - frakt0x90 3y ago
    Except that every stackoverflow post is explicitly creative commons: https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
    - bnralt 3y ago
      So I suppose it would be the like saying that if you used Stack Overflow to find answers, all of the work you created using information from it would have to be explicitly under the Creative Commons license. You wouldn't even be able to work for companies who aren't using that license if some of your knowledge comes from what you learned on Stack Overflow. Used Stack Overflow to learn anything about programming? You're going to have to turn down that FAANG offer. And if you learned anything from videos/books/newsletters with commercial licenses, you would have to pay some sort of fee for using that information.
      - jakeinspace 3y ago
        If your code contains verbatim copy-paste of entire blocks of non-trivial code lifted from those videos/books/newsletters with commercial licenses, then yes you would be liable for some licensing fees, at minimum.
- 015a 3y ago
  Yup, and I think that'll quickly uncover the reality that LLMs do not generate enough value relative to their true cost. GPT+ already costs $20/month. M365 Copilot costs $30/user/month. They're already the most expensive B2B-ish software subscriptions out there, there's very little market room to add in more cost to cover payments to rightsholders.

halukakin 3y ago

If this is inevitable (and I'm not saying it's not), who will produce high quality news content?

hcurtiss 3y ago
AI. And, I fear, it will be good.
- epc 3y ago
  Curious how AI gets the raw information if there are no reporters nor newspapers. Does AI go to meetings or interview politicians?
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    I can certainly imagine email correspondence. Even audio interviews. You're right that it seems at least presently AI is less likely to earn confidences. But I don't know how far off the movie "Her" actually is.