3 ms·
Oh it's worse than that. The NYT is positing that any neural network that is trained on their data, and can summarize or very closely approximate an article's c
by caeril 3y ago
Oh it's worse than that. The NYT is positing that any neural network that is trained on their data, and can summarize or very closely approximate an article's content on request, is in violation.
This reasoning would presumably apply to any neural network, including one made of neurons, dendrites, and axons. So any human reader of the NYT who is capable of accurately summarizing what they read is an evil copyright violator, and must be "deleted".
Effectively, the NYT legal department is setting the stage for mass murder.
- cycomanic 3y agoHyperbole much? There is a difference between a computer and a person. I'm not aware that people generally can be enticed to reproduce full articles verbatim just through questioning.
- ako 3y agoAs far as I know schools have to pay for the newspaper articles they use in class to educate students. Training an AI seems similar. Here’s a service for the UK providing paid access to copyrighted materials to schools: https://www.nlamediaaccess.com/newspapers-for-schools/ https://www.nlamediaaccess.com/newspapers-for-schools/