6 ms·
I don't think the lawsuit has any merit, but I'd still like to encourage Sam Altman et al, if they really care about the greater good, to go Keyser Söze and imm
by andy99 3y ago
I don't think the lawsuit has any merit, but I'd still like to encourage Sam Altman et al, if they really care about the greater good, to go Keyser Söze and immediately release torrents of the weights and source code for GPT-4 under GPL.
- forrestthewoods 3y ago> I don't think the lawsuit has any merit The lawsuit fundamentally has merit. It asks a huge open question that no one knows the answer to. The outcome will be extraordinarily impactful. The question must be answered at some point. The case has merit even if NYT loses across the board.
- kasey_junk 3y agoI can see how someone can disagree with the NYT position but the idea that it lacks merit is wild! AI might be the defining issue of copyright law for decades. There are so many open questions, and this seems like just the start.
- ls612 3y agoHow is the question being asked different from the Google Books case?
- smitty1110 3y agoYou’re not just display the contents of copyrighted works publicly, they’re selling access. This flips the script for the 1st factor of the Fair Use test. Additionally, by selling it to people who use it to get news summaries, you can argue you damage the market for a NY Times subscription, which triggers the 4th factor.
- lesuorac 3y agoI don't think anybody has claimed that OpenAI is causing NYT subscriptions to go up. NYT has even expressly made the claim they're losing potential revenue. > [1] On the most important factor, possible economic damage to the copyright owner, [Judge] Chin wrote that "Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Racing0461 3y ago> The question must be answered at some point. agreed. in the same way Colorado supreme court ruled trump can't be on the ballot to force scotus to rule i think is the same reasoning here. get an answer earlier rather than later.
- glimshe 3y agoFor the good of the world, let's hope the NYT loses across the board. It's basically behaving like a copyright troll here.
- mongol 3y agoI am of opposite opinion. I think it is unreasonable to train AI using copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder, at least if it is done to create a proprietary product. It is probable even unreasonable if the end result would not be proprietary but at least that would benefit the world more.
- jpfr 3y agoAFAIK the IP deal with Microsoft only covers development before AGI. So at any point OpenAI could declare that a sufficient degree of AGI has been achieved and thus return to its philanthropic mission. With GPLed models and all. However, at this point the employees expect a multi-million cash-out for each of them. So the philanthropic mission seems to be gone out the window. And probably that’s also the way Sam Altman got back into the CEO role. By maximizing the expected eventual cash-out for the employees which threatened to leave otherwise.
- Racing0461 3y ago> OpenAI could declare that a sufficient degree of AGI has been achieved and thus return to its philanthropic mission The response from MSFT's legal team would be biblical if openai pulled this.
- edgyquant 3y agoIt’s literally in the contract such a distinction is at OpenAIs discretion
- jackdaniel 3y agoTechnically firing CEO was also at the board's discretion, so I'm dubious whether that means anything at this point.
- Racing0461 3y agoThe lawsuit won't be about the clause, it would be about the definition of AGI.
- edgyquant 3y agoLuckily MS is now on the board so they’ll have a say in when AGI is declared
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dsgnr 3y ago[dead]