3 ms·
I see few people here bring this up, so let me: The US constitution says, The Congress shall have Power > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
by bdd8f1df777b 3y ago
I see few people here bring this up, so let me:
The US constitution says, The Congress shall have Power
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
So the Congress's power to make copyright and patent laws is predicated on promotion of science and useful arts (I believe this actually means technology). In a sense, the OpenAI being the forefront of our AI technology advancement is crucial to the equation. To hinder the progress by copyright is, in my mind, unconstitutional.
- globular-toast 3y agoCurrent AI is useless without people writing the articles in the first place.
- madeofpalk 3y agoWishful thinking. Just as equally, NYT’s right to copyright over its material, in order to have a functional press, is enshrined the constitution. Anyone threatening that copyright could be unconstitutional. I think we all agree that no one is entitled to “progress of science” at any cost - as a straw man, killing hundreds of newborn babies for scientific research is not great - so we use ethics and the legal system to find the line of what’s acceptable. I don’t know exactly what NYT is asking for here, but the two options aren’t unconsented training vs nothing at all. NYT could license, for a fee, its content to OpenAI. It’s pretty common for scientists to have to pay for materials!