10 ms·

I understand that regulations exist and how there can be copyright violations, but shouldn't we be concerned that other.. more lenient governments (mainly China

I understand that regulations exist and how there can be copyright violations, but shouldn't we be concerned that other.. more lenient governments (mainly China) who are opposed to the US will use this to get ahead? If OpenAI is significantly set back.

fny 2y ago
No. OpenAI is suspected to be worth over $150B. They can absolutely afford to pay people for data. Edit: People commenting need to understand that $150B is the discounted value of future revenues. So... yes they can pay out... yes they will be worth less... and yes that's fair to the people who created the information. I can't believe there are so many apologists on HN for what amounts to vacuuming up peoples data for financial gain.
- suby 2y ago
  OpenAI is not profitable, and to achieve what they have achieved they had to scrape basically the entire internet. I don't have a hard time believing that OpenAI could not exist if they had to respect copyright. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/openai-sees-5-billion-loss-this-year-on-3point7-billion-in-revenue.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/openai-sees-5-billion-loss-t...
  - jpalawaga 2y ago
    technically open ai has respected copyright, except in the (few) instances they produce non-fair-use amounts of copyrighted material. dmca does not cover scraping.
  - noitpmeder 2y ago
    That's a good thing! If a company cannot raise to fame unless they violate laws, it should not have been there. There is plenty of public domain text that could have taught a LLM English.
    - suby 2y ago
      I'm not convinced that the economic harm to content creators is greater than the productivity gains and accessibility of knowledge for users (relative to how competent it would be if trained just on public domain text). Personally, I derive immense value from ChatGPT / Claude. It's borderline life changing for me. As time goes on, I imagine that it'll increasingly be the case that these LLM's will displace people out of their jobs / careers. I don't know whether the harm done will be greater than the benefit to society. I'm sure the answer will depend on who it is that you ask. > That's a good thing! If a company cannot raise to fame unless they violate laws, it should not have been there. Obviously given what I wrote above, I'd consider it a bad thing if LLM tech severely regressed due to copyright law. Laws are not inherently good or bad. I think you can make a good argument that this tech will be a net negative for society, but I don't think it's valid to do so just on the basis that it is breaking the law as it is today.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        > I'm not convinced that the economic harm to content creators is greater than the productivity gains and accessibility of knowledge for users (relative to how competent it would be if trained just on public domain text). Good thing whether or not something is a copyright violation doesn't depend on if you can make more money with someone else's work than they can.
        suby 2y ago
        I understand the anger about large tech companies using others work without compensation, especially when both they and their users benefit financially. But this goes beyond economcis. LLM tech could accelerate advances in medicine and technology. I strongly believe that we're going to see societal benefits in education, healthcare, especially mental health support thanks to this tech. I also think that someone making money off LLM's is a separate question from whether or not the original creator has been harmed. I think many creators are going to benefit from better tools, and we'll likely see new forms of creation become viable. We already recognize that certain uses of intellectual property should be permitted for societies benefit. We have fair use doctrine, patent compulsory licensing for public health, research exmpetions, and public libraries. Transformative use is also permitted, and LLMs are inherently transformative. Look at the volume of data that they ingest compared to the final size of a trained model, and how fundamentally different the output format is from the input data. Human progress has always built upon existing knowledge. Consider how both Darwin and Wallace independently developed evolution theory at roughly the same time -- not from isolation, but from building on the intellectual foundation of their era. Everything in human culture builds on what came before. That all being said, I'm also sure that this tech is going to negative impact people too. Like I said in the other reply, whether or not this tech is good or bad will depend on who you ask. I just think that we should weigh these costs against the potential benefits to society as a whole rather than simply preserving existing systems, or blindly following the law as if the law is inherently just or good. Copyright law was made before this tech was even imagined, and it seems fair to now evaluate whether the current copyright regime makes sense if it turns out that it'd keep us in some local maximum.
- jsheard 2y ago
  The OpenAI that is assumed to keep being able to harvest every form of IP without compensation is valued at $150B, an OpenAI that has to pay for data would be worth significantly less. They're currently not even expecting to turn a profit until 2029, and that's without paying for data. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-reveals-openais-44-billion-145334935.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-reveals-openais-44-bil...
- mrweasel 2y ago
  That's not real money tough. You need actual cash on hand to pay for stuff, OpenAI only have the money they've been given by investors. I suspect that many of the investors wouldn't have been so keen if they knew that OpenAI would need an additional couple of billions a year to pay for data.
  - __loam 2y ago
    That's too bad that your business isn't viable without the largest single violation of copyright of all time.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  That doesn’t mean they have $150B to hand over. What you can cite is the $10 billion they got from Microsoft. I’m sure they could use a chunk of that to buy competitive I.P. for both companies to use for training. They can also pay experts to create it. They could even sell that to others for use in smaller models to finance creating or buying even more I.P. for their models.
- wvenable 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mongol 2y ago
    The process of reading it into their training data is a way of copying it. It exists somewhere and they need to copy it in order to ingest it.
    - wvenable 2y ago
      By that logic you're violating copyright by using a web browser.
      - Suppafly 2y ago
        >By that logic you're violating copyright by using a web browser. You would be except for the fact that publishing stuff on the web gives people an implicit license to download it for the purposes of viewing it.
        Timwi 2y ago
        Not sure about US or other jurisdictions, but that's not how any of this works in Germany. In Germany downloading anything from anywhere (even a movie) is never illegal and does not require a license. What's illegal is publishing/disseminating copyrighted content without authorization. BitTorrenting a movie is illegal because you're distributing it to other torrenters. Streaming a movie on your website is illegal because it's public. You can be held liable for using a photo from the web to illustrate your eBay auction, not because you downloaded it but because you republished it. OpenAI (and Google and everyone else) is creating a publicly-accessible system that produces output that could be derived from copyrighted material.
        Tomte 2y ago
        > In Germany […] That‘s confidently and completely wrong.
dmead 2y ago
I'm more concerned that someone people in the tech world are conflating Sam Altman's interest with the national interest.
- jMyles 2y ago
  Am I jazzed about Sam Altman making billions? No. Am I even more concerned about the state having control over the future corpus of knowledge via this doomed-in-any-case vector of "intellectual property"? Yes. I think it will be easier to overcome the influence of billionaires when we drop the pretext that the state is a more primal force than the internet.
  - dmead 2y ago
    100% disagree. "It'll be fine bro" is not a substitute for having a vote over policy decisions made by the government. What you're talking about has a name. It starts with F and was very popular in Italy in the early to mid 20th century.
    - jMyles 2y ago
      Rapidity of Godwin's law notwithstanding, I'm not disputing the importance of equity in decision-making. But this matter is more complex than that: it's obvious that the internet doesn't tolerate censorship even if it is dressed as intellectual property. I prefer an open and democratic internet to one policied by childish legacy states, the presence of which serves only (and only sometimes) to drive content into open secrecy. It seems particularly unfair to equate any questioning of the wisdom of copyright laws (even when applied in situations where we might not care for the defendant, as with this case) with fascism.
      - dmead 2y ago
        It's not Godwin's law when it's correct. Just because it's cool and on the Internet doesn't mean you get to throw out people's stake in how their lives are run.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
worble 2y ago
Should we also be concerned that other governments use slave labor (among other human rights violations) and will use that to get ahead?
- logicchains 2y ago
  It's hysterical to compare training an ML model with slave labour. It's perfectly fine and accepted for a human to read and learn from content online without paying anything to the author when that content has been made available online for free, it's absurd to assert that it somehow becomes a human rights violation when the learning is done by a non-biological brain instead.
  - Kbelicius 2y ago
    > It's hysterical to compare training an ML model with slave labour. Nobody did that. > It's perfectly fine and accepted for a human to read and learn from content online without paying anything to the author when that content has been made available online for free, it's absurd to assert that it somehow becomes a human rights violation when the learning is done by a non-biological brain instead. It makes sense. There is always scale to consider in these things.
    - totallykvothe 2y ago
      worble literally did make that comparison. It is possible for comparisons to be made using other rhetorical devices than just saying "I am comparing a to b".
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        > worble literally did make that comparison No, their mention of "slave labor" is not a comparison to how LLMs work, nor an assertion of moral equivalence. Instead it is just one example to demonstrate that chasing economic/geopolitical competitiveness is not a carte blanche to adopt practices that might be immoral or unjust.
devsda 2y ago
Get ahead in terms of what? Do you believe that the material in public domain or legally available content that doesn't violate copyrights is not enough to research AI/LLMs or is the concern about purely commercial interests? China also supposedly has abusive labor practices. So, should other countries start relaxing their labor laws to avoid falling behind ?
mu53 2y ago
Isn't it a greater risk that creators lose their income and nobody is creating the content anymore? Take for instance what has happened with news because of the internet. Not exactly the same, but similar forces at work. It turned into a race to the bottom with everyone trying to generate content as cheaply as possible to get maximum engagement with tech companies siphoning revenue. Expensive, investigative pieces from educated journalists disappeared in favor of stuff that looks like spam. Pre-Internet news was higher quality Imagine that same effect happening for all content? Art, writing, academic pieces. Its a real risk that openai has peaked in quality
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  Lots of people create without getting paid to do it. A lot of music and art is unprofitable. In fact, you could argue that when the mainstream media companies got completely captured by suits with no interest in the things their companies invested in, that was when creativity died and we got consigned to genre-box superhero pop hell.
- eastbound 2y ago
  I don’t know. When I look at news from before, there never was investigative journalism. It was all opinion swaying editos, until alternate voices voiced their counternarratives. It’s just not in newspapers because they are too politically biased to produce the two sides of stories that we’ve always asked them to do. It’s on other media. But investigative journalism has not disappeared. If anything, it has grown.
  - mu53 2y ago
    its changed. Investigative journalism is done by non-profits specializing in it, who have various financial motives. The budgets at newspapers used to be much larger and fund more investigative journalism with a clearer motive.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  > Isn't it a greater risk that creators lose their income and nobody is creating the content anymore? There are already multiple lifetimes of quality content out there. It's difficult to get worked up about the potential future losses.
snickerbockers 2y ago
[flagged]
immibis 2y ago
Absolutely: if copyright is slowing down innovation, we should abolish copyright. Not just turn a blind eye when it's the right people doing it. They don't even have a legal exemption passed by Congress - they're just straight-up breaking the law and getting away with it. Which is how America works, I suppose.
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  > Absolutely: if copyright is slowing down innovation, we should abolish copyright. Is this sarcasm?
  - immibis 2y ago
    No. If something slows down innovation and suffocates the economy, why would you (an economically minded politician) keep it?
    - noitpmeder 2y ago
      Because the world shouldn't be run primarily by economically minded politicians?? I'm sure China gets competitive advantages from their use of indentured and slave-like labor forces, and mass reeducation programs in camps. Should the US allow these things to happen? What about if a private business starts? But remember, they're just trying to compete with China on a fair playing field, so everything is permitted right?
      - redwall_hp 2y ago
        You might want to look at the constitutional amendment enshrining slave labor "as a punishment for a crime," and the world's largest prison population. Much of your food supply has links to prison labor. https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-inve... But don't worry, it's not considered "slave labor" because there's a nominal wage of a few pennies involved and it's not technically "forced." You just might be tortured with solitary confinement if you don't do it. We need to point fewer fingers and clean up the problems here.
bogwog 2y ago
This type of argument is ignorant, cowardly, shortsighted, and regressive. Both technology and society will progress when we find a formula that is sustainable and incentivizes everyone involved to maximize their contributions without it all blowing up in our faces someday. Copyright law is far from perfect, but it protects artists who want to try and make a living from their work, and it incentivizes creativity that places without such protections usually end up just imitating. When we find that sustainable framework for AI, China or <insert-boogeyman-here> will just end up imitating it. Idk what harms you're imagining might come from that ("get ahead" is too vague to mean anything), but I just want to point out that that isn't how you become a leader in anything. Even worse, if they are the ones who find that formula first while we take shortcuts to "get ahead", then we will be the ones doing the imitation in the end.
- gaganyaan 2y ago
  Copyright is a dead man walking and that's a good thing. Let's applaud the end of a temporary unnatural state of affairs.
  - Andrex 2y ago
    Care to make it interesting? What do you consider "dead" and what do you consider a reasonable timeframe for this to occur? I have 60 or so years and $50.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      I am in as well, I have 50 or so years and $60 (though would gladly put $600k on this… :) )
  - CJefferson 2y ago
    If OpenAI wants copyright to be dead, then they could just give out all their models copyright free.
FpUser 2y ago
Shall we install the emperor then?

fny 2y ago

No. OpenAI is suspected to be worth over $150B. They can absolutely afford to pay people for data. Edit: People commenting need to understand that $150B is the discounted value of future revenues. So... yes they can pay out... yes they will be worth less... and yes that's fair to the people who created the information. I can't believe there are so many apologists on HN for what amounts to vacuuming up peoples data for financial gain.

suby 2y ago
OpenAI is not profitable, and to achieve what they have achieved they had to scrape basically the entire internet. I don't have a hard time believing that OpenAI could not exist if they had to respect copyright. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/openai-sees-5-billion-loss-this-year-on-3point7-billion-in-revenue.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/27/openai-sees-5-billion-loss-t...
- jpalawaga 2y ago
  technically open ai has respected copyright, except in the (few) instances they produce non-fair-use amounts of copyrighted material. dmca does not cover scraping.
- noitpmeder 2y ago
  That's a good thing! If a company cannot raise to fame unless they violate laws, it should not have been there. There is plenty of public domain text that could have taught a LLM English.
  - suby 2y ago
    I'm not convinced that the economic harm to content creators is greater than the productivity gains and accessibility of knowledge for users (relative to how competent it would be if trained just on public domain text). Personally, I derive immense value from ChatGPT / Claude. It's borderline life changing for me. As time goes on, I imagine that it'll increasingly be the case that these LLM's will displace people out of their jobs / careers. I don't know whether the harm done will be greater than the benefit to society. I'm sure the answer will depend on who it is that you ask. > That's a good thing! If a company cannot raise to fame unless they violate laws, it should not have been there. Obviously given what I wrote above, I'd consider it a bad thing if LLM tech severely regressed due to copyright law. Laws are not inherently good or bad. I think you can make a good argument that this tech will be a net negative for society, but I don't think it's valid to do so just on the basis that it is breaking the law as it is today.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      > I'm not convinced that the economic harm to content creators is greater than the productivity gains and accessibility of knowledge for users (relative to how competent it would be if trained just on public domain text). Good thing whether or not something is a copyright violation doesn't depend on if you can make more money with someone else's work than they can.
      - suby 2y ago
        I understand the anger about large tech companies using others work without compensation, especially when both they and their users benefit financially. But this goes beyond economcis. LLM tech could accelerate advances in medicine and technology. I strongly believe that we're going to see societal benefits in education, healthcare, especially mental health support thanks to this tech. I also think that someone making money off LLM's is a separate question from whether or not the original creator has been harmed. I think many creators are going to benefit from better tools, and we'll likely see new forms of creation become viable. We already recognize that certain uses of intellectual property should be permitted for societies benefit. We have fair use doctrine, patent compulsory licensing for public health, research exmpetions, and public libraries. Transformative use is also permitted, and LLMs are inherently transformative. Look at the volume of data that they ingest compared to the final size of a trained model, and how fundamentally different the output format is from the input data. Human progress has always built upon existing knowledge. Consider how both Darwin and Wallace independently developed evolution theory at roughly the same time -- not from isolation, but from building on the intellectual foundation of their era. Everything in human culture builds on what came before. That all being said, I'm also sure that this tech is going to negative impact people too. Like I said in the other reply, whether or not this tech is good or bad will depend on who you ask. I just think that we should weigh these costs against the potential benefits to society as a whole rather than simply preserving existing systems, or blindly following the law as if the law is inherently just or good. Copyright law was made before this tech was even imagined, and it seems fair to now evaluate whether the current copyright regime makes sense if it turns out that it'd keep us in some local maximum.
jsheard 2y ago
The OpenAI that is assumed to keep being able to harvest every form of IP without compensation is valued at $150B, an OpenAI that has to pay for data would be worth significantly less. They're currently not even expecting to turn a profit until 2029, and that's without paying for data. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-reveals-openais-44-billion-145334935.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-reveals-openais-44-bil...
mrweasel 2y ago
That's not real money tough. You need actual cash on hand to pay for stuff, OpenAI only have the money they've been given by investors. I suspect that many of the investors wouldn't have been so keen if they knew that OpenAI would need an additional couple of billions a year to pay for data.
- __loam 2y ago
  That's too bad that your business isn't viable without the largest single violation of copyright of all time.
nickpsecurity 2y ago
That doesn’t mean they have $150B to hand over. What you can cite is the $10 billion they got from Microsoft. I’m sure they could use a chunk of that to buy competitive I.P. for both companies to use for training. They can also pay experts to create it. They could even sell that to others for use in smaller models to finance creating or buying even more I.P. for their models.
wvenable 2y ago
[flagged]
- mongol 2y ago
  The process of reading it into their training data is a way of copying it. It exists somewhere and they need to copy it in order to ingest it.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    By that logic you're violating copyright by using a web browser.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >By that logic you're violating copyright by using a web browser. You would be except for the fact that publishing stuff on the web gives people an implicit license to download it for the purposes of viewing it.
      - Timwi 2y ago
        Not sure about US or other jurisdictions, but that's not how any of this works in Germany. In Germany downloading anything from anywhere (even a movie) is never illegal and does not require a license. What's illegal is publishing/disseminating copyrighted content without authorization. BitTorrenting a movie is illegal because you're distributing it to other torrenters. Streaming a movie on your website is illegal because it's public. You can be held liable for using a photo from the web to illustrate your eBay auction, not because you downloaded it but because you republished it. OpenAI (and Google and everyone else) is creating a publicly-accessible system that produces output that could be derived from copyrighted material.
        Tomte 2y ago
        > In Germany […] That‘s confidently and completely wrong.

dmead 2y ago

I'm more concerned that someone people in the tech world are conflating Sam Altman's interest with the national interest.

jMyles 2y ago
Am I jazzed about Sam Altman making billions? No. Am I even more concerned about the state having control over the future corpus of knowledge via this doomed-in-any-case vector of "intellectual property"? Yes. I think it will be easier to overcome the influence of billionaires when we drop the pretext that the state is a more primal force than the internet.
- dmead 2y ago
  100% disagree. "It'll be fine bro" is not a substitute for having a vote over policy decisions made by the government. What you're talking about has a name. It starts with F and was very popular in Italy in the early to mid 20th century.
  - jMyles 2y ago
    Rapidity of Godwin's law notwithstanding, I'm not disputing the importance of equity in decision-making. But this matter is more complex than that: it's obvious that the internet doesn't tolerate censorship even if it is dressed as intellectual property. I prefer an open and democratic internet to one policied by childish legacy states, the presence of which serves only (and only sometimes) to drive content into open secrecy. It seems particularly unfair to equate any questioning of the wisdom of copyright laws (even when applied in situations where we might not care for the defendant, as with this case) with fascism.
    - dmead 2y ago
      It's not Godwin's law when it's correct. Just because it's cool and on the Internet doesn't mean you get to throw out people's stake in how their lives are run.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

worble 2y ago

Should we also be concerned that other governments use slave labor (among other human rights violations) and will use that to get ahead?

logicchains 2y ago
It's hysterical to compare training an ML model with slave labour. It's perfectly fine and accepted for a human to read and learn from content online without paying anything to the author when that content has been made available online for free, it's absurd to assert that it somehow becomes a human rights violation when the learning is done by a non-biological brain instead.
- Kbelicius 2y ago
  > It's hysterical to compare training an ML model with slave labour. Nobody did that. > It's perfectly fine and accepted for a human to read and learn from content online without paying anything to the author when that content has been made available online for free, it's absurd to assert that it somehow becomes a human rights violation when the learning is done by a non-biological brain instead. It makes sense. There is always scale to consider in these things.
  - totallykvothe 2y ago
    worble literally did make that comparison. It is possible for comparisons to be made using other rhetorical devices than just saying "I am comparing a to b".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > worble literally did make that comparison No, their mention of "slave labor" is not a comparison to how LLMs work, nor an assertion of moral equivalence. Instead it is just one example to demonstrate that chasing economic/geopolitical competitiveness is not a carte blanche to adopt practices that might be immoral or unjust.

devsda 2y ago

Get ahead in terms of what? Do you believe that the material in public domain or legally available content that doesn't violate copyrights is not enough to research AI/LLMs or is the concern about purely commercial interests? China also supposedly has abusive labor practices. So, should other countries start relaxing their labor laws to avoid falling behind ?

mu53 2y ago

Isn't it a greater risk that creators lose their income and nobody is creating the content anymore? Take for instance what has happened with news because of the internet. Not exactly the same, but similar forces at work. It turned into a race to the bottom with everyone trying to generate content as cheaply as possible to get maximum engagement with tech companies siphoning revenue. Expensive, investigative pieces from educated journalists disappeared in favor of stuff that looks like spam. Pre-Internet news was higher quality Imagine that same effect happening for all content? Art, writing, academic pieces. Its a real risk that openai has peaked in quality

CuriouslyC 2y ago
Lots of people create without getting paid to do it. A lot of music and art is unprofitable. In fact, you could argue that when the mainstream media companies got completely captured by suits with no interest in the things their companies invested in, that was when creativity died and we got consigned to genre-box superhero pop hell.
eastbound 2y ago
I don’t know. When I look at news from before, there never was investigative journalism. It was all opinion swaying editos, until alternate voices voiced their counternarratives. It’s just not in newspapers because they are too politically biased to produce the two sides of stories that we’ve always asked them to do. It’s on other media. But investigative journalism has not disappeared. If anything, it has grown.
- mu53 2y ago
  its changed. Investigative journalism is done by non-profits specializing in it, who have various financial motives. The budgets at newspapers used to be much larger and fund more investigative journalism with a clearer motive.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
> Isn't it a greater risk that creators lose their income and nobody is creating the content anymore? There are already multiple lifetimes of quality content out there. It's difficult to get worked up about the potential future losses.

snickerbockers 2y ago

[flagged]

immibis 2y ago

Absolutely: if copyright is slowing down innovation, we should abolish copyright. Not just turn a blind eye when it's the right people doing it. They don't even have a legal exemption passed by Congress - they're just straight-up breaking the law and getting away with it. Which is how America works, I suppose.

blackqueeriroh 2y ago
> Absolutely: if copyright is slowing down innovation, we should abolish copyright. Is this sarcasm?
- immibis 2y ago
  No. If something slows down innovation and suffocates the economy, why would you (an economically minded politician) keep it?
  - noitpmeder 2y ago
    Because the world shouldn't be run primarily by economically minded politicians?? I'm sure China gets competitive advantages from their use of indentured and slave-like labor forces, and mass reeducation programs in camps. Should the US allow these things to happen? What about if a private business starts? But remember, they're just trying to compete with China on a fair playing field, so everything is permitted right?
    - redwall_hp 2y ago
      You might want to look at the constitutional amendment enshrining slave labor "as a punishment for a crime," and the world's largest prison population. Much of your food supply has links to prison labor. https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-inve... But don't worry, it's not considered "slave labor" because there's a nominal wage of a few pennies involved and it's not technically "forced." You just might be tortured with solitary confinement if you don't do it. We need to point fewer fingers and clean up the problems here.

bogwog 2y ago

This type of argument is ignorant, cowardly, shortsighted, and regressive. Both technology and society will progress when we find a formula that is sustainable and incentivizes everyone involved to maximize their contributions without it all blowing up in our faces someday. Copyright law is far from perfect, but it protects artists who want to try and make a living from their work, and it incentivizes creativity that places without such protections usually end up just imitating. When we find that sustainable framework for AI, China or <insert-boogeyman-here> will just end up imitating it. Idk what harms you're imagining might come from that ("get ahead" is too vague to mean anything), but I just want to point out that that isn't how you become a leader in anything. Even worse, if they are the ones who find that formula first while we take shortcuts to "get ahead", then we will be the ones doing the imitation in the end.

gaganyaan 2y ago
Copyright is a dead man walking and that's a good thing. Let's applaud the end of a temporary unnatural state of affairs.
- Andrex 2y ago
  Care to make it interesting? What do you consider "dead" and what do you consider a reasonable timeframe for this to occur? I have 60 or so years and $50.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I am in as well, I have 50 or so years and $60 (though would gladly put $600k on this… :) )
- CJefferson 2y ago
  If OpenAI wants copyright to be dead, then they could just give out all their models copyright free.

FpUser 2y ago

Shall we install the emperor then?