4 ms·
"We had explained to The New York Times that, like any single source, their content didn't meaningfully contribute to the training of our existing models and al
by dougb5 3y ago
"We had explained to The New York Times that, like any single source, their content didn't meaningfully contribute to the training of our existing models and also wouldn't be sufficiently impactful for future training."
I wonder how they operationalize "meaningful". After all, if the work didn't meaningfully contribute to the training of existing or future models, then why do they seem to need it in the first place?
- kromem 3y agoBecause they need the ocean, even if they don't need any individual drop within it. Relative to the rest of the data, NYT's is not meaningfully impactful. But they need the aggregate amount of data, which is why they need training to be fair use and to be opt out rather than opt in.
- dougb5 3y agoUnderstood, and that's at the core of the hustle here. At some point one of NYT's lawyers is going to point out the apparent contradiction in OpenAI saying that NYT is important enough that they need to take from them, but not important enough that their taking causes damages to them.
- kromem 3y agoActually, if you read Sy Damile's (a former General Counsel of the US Copyright office) testimony to Congress (which is really worth a read), he makes a very good point that the smaller the training data set the less likely that the resulting model would qualify for fair use of the data as it would be more likely that the model would not be transformative and would be prone to reproduce the training data. So arguably the importance of including the NYT and everyone else collectively in opt out selection is precisely because it makes the NYT individually less important in the final model.
- StreetChief 3y agoThis is the art of bullshitting.