7 ms·

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Eventually - for how many of these AI companies would a person have to track down their opt

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Eventually - for how many of these AI companies would a person have to track down their opt-out processes just to protect their work from AI? That's crazy. OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work. How they are getting away with this is beyond me.

paulcole 2y ago
> OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work This is the problem of thinking that everyone “has” to do something. I assure you that I (and you) can use someone else’s work without asking for permission. Will there be consequences? Perhaps. Is the risk of the consequences enough to get me to ask for permission? Perhaps. Am I a nice enough guy to feel like I should do the right thing and ask for permission? Perhaps. Is everyone like me? No. > How they are getting away with this is beyond me. Is it really beyond you? I think it’s pretty clear. They’re powerful enough that the political will to hold them accountable is nonexistent.
- farrarstan 2y ago
  [dead]
CamperBob2 2y ago
I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Because the work being done, from the point of view of people who believe they are on the verge of creating AGI, is arguably more important than copyright. Less controversially: if the courts determine that training an ML model is not fair use, then anyone who respects copyright law will end up with an uncompetitive model. As will anyone operating in a country where the laws force them to do so. So don't expect the large players to walk away without putting up a massive fight.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Of note here is the reason it's "important" is it will make a shit-ton of money.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    That, coupled with the obvious ideological motivations. Success could alter the course of human history, maybe even for the better. If you feel that what you're doing is that important, you're not going to let copyright law get in the way, and it would be silly to expect you to.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
      Oh please. OpenAI and I guess every other AI company are for-profit. The only change they are motivated by is their bank balances. If this were a less useful tool they’d still be motivated to ignore laws and exploit others.
      - CamperBob2 2y ago
        Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. You don't see that at Boeing or Microsoft. Obviously it's a highly-commercial endeavor, which is why they are trying so hard to back away from the whole non-profit concept. But that's largely orthogonal to the question of whether they feel they are doing things for the benefit of humanity that are profound enough to justify blowing off copyright law. Especially given that only HN'ers are 100% certain that training a model is infringement. In the real world, this is not a settled question. Why worry about obeying laws that don't even exist yet?
        maeil 2y ago
        > Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. It isn't. > There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. This only reinforces that the real drive is money.
griomnib 2y ago
Napster had a moment too, but then they got steamrolled in court. Courts are slow, so it seems like nothing is happening, but there’s tons of cases in the pipeline. The media industry has forced many tech firms to bend the knee, OpenAI will follow suit. Nobody rips off Disney IP and lives to tell the tale.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  And yet Micky Mouse is in the public domain. Something those of us who remember the 90s thought would never happen.
  - timcobb 2y ago
    Just the oldest Mickey. They gave up on it because the cost/benefit wasn't deemed worth it anymore.
- tiahura 2y ago
  If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innovation), and does not usurp the market for the original work.
  - toddmorey 2y ago
    In my experience when existing laws allow an outcome that causes enough significant harm to groups with influence, the laws gets changed.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    There was a time when it did not usurp the market for the original work, but as the technology improves and becomes more accessible, that seems to be changing.
  - 2y ago
munchler 2y ago
Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.
- soared 2y ago
  There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - munchler 2y ago
    Sure, but that's a different claim and a different argument.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    And it is. And you can sue them for that. What you can’t do is get upset they (or their AI) read it.
  - amiantos 2y ago
    I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      I don't think so: The user is merely making a request for copyrighted material, which is not itself infringing, even if their request was extremely specific and their intent was obvious. OpenAI would be the company actually committing the infringement and providing the copy in order to satisfy the request. If the law suddenly worked the other way around, companies would no longer be able to prosecute people for hosting pirated content online, because the responsibility would lie with the users choosing to initiate the download.

paulcole 2y ago

> OpenAI should be contacting every single one and asking for permission - like everyone has to in order to use a person's work This is the problem of thinking that everyone “has” to do something. I assure you that I (and you) can use someone else’s work without asking for permission. Will there be consequences? Perhaps. Is the risk of the consequences enough to get me to ask for permission? Perhaps. Am I a nice enough guy to feel like I should do the right thing and ask for permission? Perhaps. Is everyone like me? No. > How they are getting away with this is beyond me. Is it really beyond you? I think it’s pretty clear. They’re powerful enough that the political will to hold them accountable is nonexistent.

farrarstan 2y ago
[dead]

CamperBob2 2y ago

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out. Because the work being done, from the point of view of people who believe they are on the verge of creating AGI, is arguably more important than copyright. Less controversially: if the courts determine that training an ML model is not fair use, then anyone who respects copyright law will end up with an uncompetitive model. As will anyone operating in a country where the laws force them to do so. So don't expect the large players to walk away without putting up a massive fight.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Of note here is the reason it's "important" is it will make a shit-ton of money.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  That, coupled with the obvious ideological motivations. Success could alter the course of human history, maybe even for the better. If you feel that what you're doing is that important, you're not going to let copyright law get in the way, and it would be silly to expect you to.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    Oh please. OpenAI and I guess every other AI company are for-profit. The only change they are motivated by is their bank balances. If this were a less useful tool they’d still be motivated to ignore laws and exploit others.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. You don't see that at Boeing or Microsoft. Obviously it's a highly-commercial endeavor, which is why they are trying so hard to back away from the whole non-profit concept. But that's largely orthogonal to the question of whether they feel they are doing things for the benefit of humanity that are profound enough to justify blowing off copyright law. Especially given that only HN'ers are 100% certain that training a model is infringement. In the real world, this is not a settled question. Why worry about obeying laws that don't even exist yet?
      - maeil 2y ago
        > Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. It isn't. > There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. This only reinforces that the real drive is money.

griomnib 2y ago

Napster had a moment too, but then they got steamrolled in court. Courts are slow, so it seems like nothing is happening, but there’s tons of cases in the pipeline. The media industry has forced many tech firms to bend the knee, OpenAI will follow suit. Nobody rips off Disney IP and lives to tell the tale.

llm_trw 2y ago
And yet Micky Mouse is in the public domain. Something those of us who remember the 90s thought would never happen.
- timcobb 2y ago
  Just the oldest Mickey. They gave up on it because the cost/benefit wasn't deemed worth it anymore.
tiahura 2y ago
If your business model depends on the Roberts' court kneecapping AI, pivot. Training does not constitute "copying" under copyright law because it involves the creation of intermediate, non-expressive data abstractions that do not reproduce or communicate the copyrighted work's original expression. This process aligns with fair use principles, as it is transformative, serves a distinct purpose (machine learning innovation), and does not usurp the market for the original work.
- toddmorey 2y ago
  In my experience when existing laws allow an outcome that causes enough significant harm to groups with influence, the laws gets changed.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  There was a time when it did not usurp the market for the original work, but as the technology improves and becomes more accessible, that seems to be changing.
- 2y ago

munchler 2y ago

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

soared 2y ago
There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- munchler 2y ago
  Sure, but that's a different claim and a different argument.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  And it is. And you can sue them for that. What you can’t do is get upset they (or their AI) read it.
- amiantos 2y ago
  I think to make that argument you would need evidence that someone prompted ChatGPT to reword/misquote info directly from your blog, at which point the argument would be that that person is rewording/misquoting info directly from your blog, not ChatGPT.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    I don't think so: The user is merely making a request for copyrighted material, which is not itself infringing, even if their request was extremely specific and their intent was obvious. OpenAI would be the company actually committing the infringement and providing the copy in order to satisfy the request. If the law suddenly worked the other way around, companies would no longer be able to prosecute people for hosting pirated content online, because the responsibility would lie with the users choosing to initiate the download.