3 ms·

I'd like to frame this another way. OpenAI is saying they can't survive without copyright owners consenting to use their property to make OpenAI money. And hone

I'd like to frame this another way. OpenAI is saying they can't survive without copyright owners consenting to use their property to make OpenAI money. And honestly, if your business model is dependent on that, then that's your problem. We can argue over whether you should need consent or not, but personally I find nothing wrong with someone being unable to use things I've created to make a buck without my permission (unless otherwise indicated by an explicit license).

bpodgursky 2y ago
> but personally I find nothing wrong with someone being unable to use things I've created to make a buck without my permission There's no legal framework for this rule, and you really don't want one. This is like a math textbook being selectively copyrighted as "you can read this, but you can't use the knowledge to make money". Do you want to live in that world?
- immibis 2y ago
  Are we already conceding that LLMs are people?
  - tivert 2y ago
    > Are we already conceding that LLMs are people? I bet that trying to blur the line is part of the AI startup propaganda strategy. There's no reason to think the legal rights enjoyed by people transfer to machines by analogy. My car can't be party to a contract because I can, just like the fact that I can learn doesn't mean any content can be loaded into a retrieval system [1]. [1] No, redefining the term "learning" to include "performing certain calculations on a computer" does not make those calculations the same as human learning.
  - sweeter 2y ago
    Exactly. Even then, the situation regarding text books is insane. Something like these could easily be fixed in many ways. Just in my opinion, text books should be free, based on publicly funded research and MIT or CC licensed and free and open to anyone who wishes to learn. The fact that we gate keep knowledge (that is often research funded by tax payers) behind wealth is a giant she embarrassing stain on this country and this era.
- TheCleric 2y ago
  Here's the difference though: you can't copyright facts. The facts were there before anyone discovered them. If I describe something that is objectively true for the first time, it was simply there and I noticed it. I expect anyone who would like to, to notice it as well and build on it that observation with their own observations. In other words if I show the earth is "round" then I didn't create that fact. It simply was. What I mean by things that I've created, I mean that I've literally brought into the world. A novel, a photograph, some code. Those things did not already exist, but only came about due to my thoughts and work. So I don't find it unreasonable to say I would like to limit for a reasonable period of time (that I absolutely acknowledge is WAY too long in the USA right now) their abuse by others to make a buck off of.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I think a better analogy would be OpenAI acquiring the textbook on the sly (eg. not paying a penny for it), then making it available for a small fee to anyone as a service. Then, crying about how it can't make money if it is made to pay for the original textbook.

bpodgursky 2y ago

> but personally I find nothing wrong with someone being unable to use things I've created to make a buck without my permission There's no legal framework for this rule, and you really don't want one. This is like a math textbook being selectively copyrighted as "you can read this, but you can't use the knowledge to make money". Do you want to live in that world?

immibis 2y ago
Are we already conceding that LLMs are people?
- tivert 2y ago
  > Are we already conceding that LLMs are people? I bet that trying to blur the line is part of the AI startup propaganda strategy. There's no reason to think the legal rights enjoyed by people transfer to machines by analogy. My car can't be party to a contract because I can, just like the fact that I can learn doesn't mean any content can be loaded into a retrieval system [1]. [1] No, redefining the term "learning" to include "performing certain calculations on a computer" does not make those calculations the same as human learning.
- sweeter 2y ago
  Exactly. Even then, the situation regarding text books is insane. Something like these could easily be fixed in many ways. Just in my opinion, text books should be free, based on publicly funded research and MIT or CC licensed and free and open to anyone who wishes to learn. The fact that we gate keep knowledge (that is often research funded by tax payers) behind wealth is a giant she embarrassing stain on this country and this era.
TheCleric 2y ago
Here's the difference though: you can't copyright facts. The facts were there before anyone discovered them. If I describe something that is objectively true for the first time, it was simply there and I noticed it. I expect anyone who would like to, to notice it as well and build on it that observation with their own observations. In other words if I show the earth is "round" then I didn't create that fact. It simply was. What I mean by things that I've created, I mean that I've literally brought into the world. A novel, a photograph, some code. Those things did not already exist, but only came about due to my thoughts and work. So I don't find it unreasonable to say I would like to limit for a reasonable period of time (that I absolutely acknowledge is WAY too long in the USA right now) their abuse by others to make a buck off of.
rich_sasha 2y ago
I think a better analogy would be OpenAI acquiring the textbook on the sly (eg. not paying a penny for it), then making it available for a small fee to anyone as a service. Then, crying about how it can't make money if it is made to pay for the original textbook.