6 ms·

Major U.S. newspapers sue OpenAI, Microsoft for copyright infringement

28 points by leeny 2y ago

Newlaptop 2y ago
So ridiculous. Every author ever has learned from, been inspired by and influenced by the books they've read before. Same for every poet, painter, musician, sculptor. So much so that it's a common interview question to ask such people about their influences. But somehow, if it's AI instead of a human, the same behavior is supposed to be copyright infringement in the eyes of the greedy copyright cartel? Preposterous.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  If they get to be treated as humans, then the far more important issue is how we immediately imprison all of these company executives for the crime of slavery.
- whateveracct 2y ago
  Computers aren't people and acting like a computer doing something a human can do means it has all the same rights as a human is not established law anywhere in this solar system.
  - warkdarrior 2y ago
    Computers "act" on behalf of the human(s) who own them. Are we gatekeeping how humans can learn? You can learn with your own brain and maybe a pencil and paper notebook, but your computer cannot help you learn?
    - whateveracct 2y ago
      I mean isn't the problem here that said computers reproduced material verbatim (plagiarism)?
    - devsda 2y ago
      There are services that are provided based on implicit assumption that their consumers are human and they are priced accordingly. You can't go to theater and instruct your computer(a.k.a. camera) to consume & learn or summarize the movie/performance on your behalf. If that's possible and allowed, I'm sure the admission fee will be drastically different. Google will not let you instruct your computer to consume all the search results for a keyword and filter out good results & summarize them (you can technically still do that but Google will try their best to make sure you don't). If you do, they'll throw you into a hell that is infinite captcha loop. Yes, they are hypocritical to do that but that is a different issue. A human and a computer are not comparable either in capabilities or their lifetimes. Let's not mix them up.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Humans can learn, but you can not plagiarize other humans work.
  - Ukv 2y ago
    > is not established law anywhere in this solar system Fair Use is the main doctrine relevant in this situation, and does not inherently distinguish between manual and automated creation. Use of traditional algorithms, like the caching/thumbnailing/snippeting done by search engines, is already covered by it. There are cases where "but it's not human" makes sense because the relevant law does make that distinction (e.g: registering a work for copyright in the US depends on human authorship), but I think it's a fairly weak point in this case. You could instead argue that it's not solely "doing something a human can do" and how that impacts on the Fair Use factors.
- chomp 2y ago
  Our legal system and government is created for humans, computer code is not human. Tech people have a tendency to create abstractions of the real world and then demand the real world respect the abstractions they create - that’s the preposterous part. LLMs are not AI. LLMs have nothing to do with how the human brain works, they have at most, a passing resemblance to how a brain could work, with the tech we have available. They aren’t human. They are code, and the humans who create these programs cannot hide behind “yerm acktchually it’s a brain so your laws don’t apply”
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    Copyright protections exist explicitly for the advancement of the useful arts and sciences. This seems like an advancement to me. On that note, I would like someone to point out which bits in the model file contain the copy that's infringing. Copyright is not some kind of divine law handed down by god.
    - watwut 2y ago
      It exists so that you are motivated to create, this makes people less motivated to create. Because, they put in work, you take it for free, repackage it and benefit from it. It is exactly what copyright is for.
      - Aerroon 2y ago
        I can't speak for LLMs, but I'm pretty sure that by this point I've seen more AI created fantasy elf images than I've seen non-AI ones. AI use has definitely exploded the number of fantasy images that I enjoy.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Obviously the input data is also useful, so we should protect the production of it. Want proof that it’s useful? > “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials“ - OpenAI Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
- wasteduniverse 2y ago
  [dead]
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  It’s not a free agent, it’s a service offered by a company. They used that material to make a tool that they continually control and profit from.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Doesn’t this make sense? If your actions of copying content disrupt or prevent the content owner’s commercial practice, then it does seem like infringement.
Planktonne 2y ago
> Many other news publishers, including the Financial Times, the Associated Press and Axel Springer, have instead opted to strike paid deals with AI companies for millions of dollars annually, undermining the Times' argument that it should be compensated billions of dollars in damages I would see this as strengthening, rather than undermining, the argument. The AI companies in those agreements are paying for something, which implies that the work both has value, and should be paid for.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related article in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers-sued-microsoft-openai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers...
digitcatphd 2y ago
1. Ilya disappears 2. Llama released 3. Data restrictions and lawsuits I think it’s time to start managing our expectations around GPT-5

28 points by leeny 2y ago

So ridiculous. Every author ever has learned from, been inspired by and influenced by the books they've read before. Same for every poet, painter, musician, sculptor. So much so that it's a common interview question to ask such people about their influences. But somehow, if it's AI instead of a human, the same behavior is supposed to be copyright infringement in the eyes of the greedy copyright cartel? Preposterous.

Terr_ 2y ago
If they get to be treated as humans, then the far more important issue is how we immediately imprison all of these company executives for the crime of slavery.
whateveracct 2y ago
Computers aren't people and acting like a computer doing something a human can do means it has all the same rights as a human is not established law anywhere in this solar system.
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  Computers "act" on behalf of the human(s) who own them. Are we gatekeeping how humans can learn? You can learn with your own brain and maybe a pencil and paper notebook, but your computer cannot help you learn?
  - whateveracct 2y ago
    I mean isn't the problem here that said computers reproduced material verbatim (plagiarism)?
  - devsda 2y ago
    There are services that are provided based on implicit assumption that their consumers are human and they are priced accordingly. You can't go to theater and instruct your computer(a.k.a. camera) to consume & learn or summarize the movie/performance on your behalf. If that's possible and allowed, I'm sure the admission fee will be drastically different. Google will not let you instruct your computer to consume all the search results for a keyword and filter out good results & summarize them (you can technically still do that but Google will try their best to make sure you don't). If you do, they'll throw you into a hell that is infinite captcha loop. Yes, they are hypocritical to do that but that is a different issue. A human and a computer are not comparable either in capabilities or their lifetimes. Let's not mix them up.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Humans can learn, but you can not plagiarize other humans work.
- Ukv 2y ago
  > is not established law anywhere in this solar system Fair Use is the main doctrine relevant in this situation, and does not inherently distinguish between manual and automated creation. Use of traditional algorithms, like the caching/thumbnailing/snippeting done by search engines, is already covered by it. There are cases where "but it's not human" makes sense because the relevant law does make that distinction (e.g: registering a work for copyright in the US depends on human authorship), but I think it's a fairly weak point in this case. You could instead argue that it's not solely "doing something a human can do" and how that impacts on the Fair Use factors.
chomp 2y ago
Our legal system and government is created for humans, computer code is not human. Tech people have a tendency to create abstractions of the real world and then demand the real world respect the abstractions they create - that’s the preposterous part. LLMs are not AI. LLMs have nothing to do with how the human brain works, they have at most, a passing resemblance to how a brain could work, with the tech we have available. They aren’t human. They are code, and the humans who create these programs cannot hide behind “yerm acktchually it’s a brain so your laws don’t apply”
- Aerroon 2y ago
  Copyright protections exist explicitly for the advancement of the useful arts and sciences. This seems like an advancement to me. On that note, I would like someone to point out which bits in the model file contain the copy that's infringing. Copyright is not some kind of divine law handed down by god.
  - watwut 2y ago
    It exists so that you are motivated to create, this makes people less motivated to create. Because, they put in work, you take it for free, repackage it and benefit from it. It is exactly what copyright is for.
    - Aerroon 2y ago
      I can't speak for LLMs, but I'm pretty sure that by this point I've seen more AI created fantasy elf images than I've seen non-AI ones. AI use has definitely exploded the number of fantasy images that I enjoy.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Obviously the input data is also useful, so we should protect the production of it. Want proof that it’s useful? > “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials“ - OpenAI Being unable to survive if you had to enter into mutually consensual agreements with your suppliers is a pretty good sign that you’re rent-seeking or stealing.
wasteduniverse 2y ago
[dead]
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
It’s not a free agent, it’s a service offered by a company. They used that material to make a tool that they continually control and profit from.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Doesn’t this make sense? If your actions of copying content disrupt or prevent the content owner’s commercial practice, then it does seem like infringement.

Planktonne 2y ago

> Many other news publishers, including the Financial Times, the Associated Press and Axel Springer, have instead opted to strike paid deals with AI companies for millions of dollars annually, undermining the Times' argument that it should be compensated billions of dollars in damages I would see this as strengthening, rather than undermining, the argument. The AI companies in those agreements are paying for something, which implies that the work both has value, and should be paid for.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related article in the Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers-sued-microsoft-openai.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/media/newspapers...

digitcatphd 2y ago

1. Ilya disappears 2. Llama released 3. Data restrictions and lawsuits I think it’s time to start managing our expectations around GPT-5