39 ms·

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

• ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
  You steal from others and make them pay - constant scraping cost money (traffic, server load, scraping protection). Then you should only be allowed to release open source models.
  • gloxkiqcza 2y ago
    A ruling that only open source models can freely use copyrighted data for training would be a funny outcome and a big F you to OpenAI. I don’t expect it to happen but an interesting thought nonetheless.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• waltercool 2y ago
  [dead]
• freedomben 2y ago
  Related (adjacent content from the same report): OpenAI urges Trump administration to remove guardrails for the industry (cnbc.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43354324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43354324
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • freedomben 2y ago
    Apparently the above has been marked as a dupe (I hope not from a misunderstanding of what "adjacent" means), but ftr it covers different stuff. e.g. there's nothing about the classified data model proposal in TFA
    • pvg 2y ago
      Slightly different coverage of the same event usually count as dupes on HN. You could link the reporting you want to emphasize/discuss, the HN submission itself is not that important.
• dsr_ 2y ago
  You see, American AI is going to take over the world. It's just that it's temporarily short of funds. I mean, GPUs. Uh, there are pesky laws in the way. Totally not the fault of a gigantic overcommitment based on wishing, no.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• gkoberger 2y ago
  I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had" to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either way, I hate that it worked.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • jokethrowaway 2y ago
    centralising power never works well for the good of society
    • kelseyfrog 2y ago
      That's correct. Voluntary association advocated by anarchy is the only truly free social model.
      • UncleEntity 2y ago
        I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is shared equally across three branches of government with checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue and just do whatever they want. Forget what they called it, united something or other.
        • int_19h 2y ago
          Well, the people who designed that system were very skeptical of political parties in general, and thought they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true, and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all three branches of government, and then those "checks and balances" kinda stop working.
          • UncleEntity 2y ago
• dchichkov 2y ago
  >> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.
  • thrance 2y ago
    They meant "freedom to learn [through backpropagation]" probably. Companies like this were allowed to siphon the free work of billions of people over centuries and they still want more.
  • sega_sai 2y ago
    I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but not real people..
    • IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Are there certain books that federal law prevents you from reading? Which ones? Maybe terrorist manuals and some child pornography, but what else?
    • TheSoftwareGuy 2y ago
      It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling copies of that book without permission of the copyright owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use that knowledge, just like a model could.
      • m1el 2y ago
        when it comes to real people, they get sued into oblivion for downloading copyrighted content, even for the purpose of learning. but when facebook & openai do it, at a much larger scale, suddenly the laws must be changed.
• pr337h4m 2y ago
  >Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said in an interview that the US AI Safety Institute – a key government group focused on AI – could act as the main point of contact between the federal government and the private sector. If companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the government could provide them “with liability protections including preemption from state based regulations that focus on frontier model security,” according to the proposal. Given OpenAI's history and relationship with the "AI safety" movement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that they also lobbied for the same proposed state-level regulations they're seeking relief from.
  • CPLX 2y ago
    The fact that Chris Lehane is the one involved in this should tell you all you need to know about how on the level all this is.
    • OkGoDoIt 2y ago
      For those of us who don’t recognize him by name, can you spell it out a little more clearly please?
      • PeterStuer 2y ago
        Was he not the one that lead coverups for the Clintons?
      • natch 2y ago
        Heavy hitter lawyer, PR expert. Some google terms: Masters of disaster, Spin cycle.
        • stuckkeys 2y ago
          Sounds like a pleasant person.
          • natch 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• 6stringmerc 2y ago
  Tell you what, set up a Federal level disclosure process online of all the copyright protected works used in training OpenAI for the creators / rights holders to get equity (out of the pockets of the C-Suite and Board) via claiming their due, and we’ll take you seriously. All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism.
  • _bin_ 2y ago
    this is a misread. it's still unclear whether use of copyrighted works to train LLMs falls under fair use but, with current laws, the answer is probably yes. you may not like that but, even if it changes, existing models were trained under existing law. also what liability do you expect them to assume? they want to offer models while saying "to use these, you must agree we don't have liability for their outputs." if companies want to use these models but don't want to deal with liability themselves, so they demand the government shift the liability to the model vendor (despite the conditions the vendor applied), that sounds like coward capitalism to me. don't like it? don't use their models.
    • Xelynega 2y ago
      > with current laws, the answer is probably yes Citation needed, or at least some reasoning. The answer to "is this fair use" can't be "it's fair use because it's fair use" > also what liability do you expect them to assume The same liability anybody does for distributing copyright works without a license? Why are they not liable if it turns out the stuff they've been distributing and making people pay for was content they didn't own the license to distribute?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • moffkalast 2y ago
    That's just feudalism with extra steps
  • bilbo0s 2y ago
    All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism While I agree with you in principle, there's little that can be done because the current crop of crony capitalists will likely support the idea of no liability for tech companies. Especially when it comes to ripping off copyrighted material. Everything from blog posts, to videos, to music, to any source code you post on the internet will be used to train models to be better writers, artists, musicians, and programmers. I feel like the only option left is to find some way to make money on the output of the models. Because the politicians are definitely going to allow the models to make money based on your output.
• Jcampuzano2 2y ago
  I know a lot of people will hate on things like this, but the reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. I don't like Trump personally as a caveat. Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign actors will just push forward and innovate without guardrails and we will just fall behind as the rest of the world pushes forward. Its easy to see how foreign tech is quickly gaining ground. If they truly cared about still propping America up, they should allow some guardrails to be pushed past.
  • AzzyHN 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • notavalleyman 2y ago
    > guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. What evidence led you to that conclusion?
    • int_19h 2y ago
      Look up "alignment tax".
  • tasty_freeze 2y ago
    The law which prevented US corporations from using bribery to win business in other nations was recently rescinded on exactly this basis: US corporations are hamstrung unless they can buy their wins. Superficially, this makes sense, and that was all that was offered to justify the change. That guardrail was dumb! But like most things, there are reasons to not do this which were completely ignored. For instance, a company may not desire to hand out cash to win business; previously, when solicited they could say, "Sorry, it is illegal for me to do so." Now there is no such shield. Second, in many cases it will be two or more US businesses trying to win business in some other country, and the change of the law only makes it more expensive for those two companies, as they now must play a game of bribery chicken to win the business. Third, the US loves to claim it is is a democracy and is working to spread democracy. By legitimizing bribes paid to foreign officials over the interests of their voting populace, we are undermining democracy in those countries (not that anyone who pays attention believes that the US's foreign policy is anything but self interested and divorced from spreading democratic ideals).
• reverendsteveii 2y ago
  Is it me or does it feel like most of what the federal government does nowadays is make it illegal for government to make things illegal?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  It probably needs to be a law not an executive order but I don't hate the idea. States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in the prohibitive states and ban ips from those states. Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access from California, would the inter state commerce clause not take effect and California would have no power anyways?
  • pjc50 2y ago
    > leaving people to either go to VPNs .. which is the prevailing situation for people dealing with state-by-state age verification at the moment.
  • arrosenberg 2y ago
    > Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access from California, would the inter state commerce clause not take effect and California would have no power anyways? California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a different state. They would have to comply when serving California customers within the state of California, regardless of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it doesn't matter where my data is stored, they still have to delete it upon my request.
    • ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
      >California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a different state. They would have to comply when serving California customers within the state of California, regardless of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it doesn't matter where my data is stored, they still have to delete it upon my request. I know this is what California thinks, I just personally don't see how this isn't inter state commerce.
      • TheCoelacanth 2y ago
        It is, of course, but that doesn't mean California can't regulate it; simply that federal laws take precedence. If states couldn't regulate interstate commerce taking place in their own states, they effectively couldn't regulate any commerce because court decisions have found that essentially all economic activity, even growing food for your own consumption, falls under the banner of interstate commerce.
• qoez 2y ago
  JD vance seems to be quite aware of OpenAIs meta strategy so I wouldn't be surprised if this is declined (ie semi specifically aimed at something they want to force them to comply with).
  • balls187 2y ago
    This administration has shown that if you grease the skids well enough, you can get things your way.
• msp26 2y ago
  Relevant (I don't know why the article doesn't link to them directly): https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-us-ai-action-plan/ https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-u... https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539-4653-b297-8bcf6e5f7686/openai-response-ostp-nsf-rfi-notice-request-for-information-on-the-development-of-an-artificial-intelligence-ai-action-plan.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539...
  • yonran 2y ago
    Thank you. I am disappointed that almost none of the comments here discuss the OpenAI proposals on the merits. I do hope that the federal government heeds most of these ideas, particularly recognizing that training a model should be fair use.
    • nonethewiser 2y ago
      The narrative of "regulatory capture" breaks down pretty fast when you see they are arguing all AI companies should be get relief from these laws. In fact most of the proposal sounds like it could have been written by the US government. Exporting democratic AI, neutralize PRC benefit of American AI, etc.
• zombiwoof 2y ago
  “Freedom to make money”
• crorella 2y ago
  If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.
  • esafak 2y ago
    No, they should pay. The solution is not to make everything free, but cost the market rate. Somebody made these things; pay them.
    • silverliver 2y ago
      ... without restricting other people. This whole mess is because society decided that restricting everyone's rights to share and access information was a sane tradeoff to make for making sure people got paid. No it is not and, so long as humans are physical, it will never be. It appears that humanity will have to get this simple fact hammered into them with every new leap in technology. Find another work-rewarding scheme. Ensure you get paid before you release information (e.g. crowd funding or contracts with escrows). Forget about nonsensical concepts relating to "intellectual" property (information is not property). Forget recurring revenue from licensing information. You only get paid once when you do work. You are not entitled to anything more. If reality makes living off your work unworkable, do something else. I'm glad other countries are starting to wake up and ignore this nonsense. Stop trying make something as unnatural and immoral as this work.
  • reilly3000 2y ago
    They should train a model on a clean dataset and copyright dataset, charge extra on the copyright model, and pay a royalty to copyright owners when their works are cited in a response.
    • ideashower 2y ago
      I like this and agree. It should be opt-in. I almost feel as if it should be something exciting and rewarding.
    • 2y ago
• iamleppert 2y ago
  He should have offered for every purchase of OpenAI services, a portion would be used to purchase TrumpCoin. That would have been a more effective bribe.
  • crorella 2y ago
    or teslers!
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• LeicaLatte 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• croes 2y ago
  > OpenAI has asked the Trump administration to help shield artificial intelligence companies from a growing number of proposed state regulations if they voluntarily share their models with the federal government. That sounds like corruption
  • __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I'm shocked
• dtquad 2y ago
  It is interesting that it is not the Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.) that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other American AI companies. It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers' unions that are leading the charge against American AI. American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why? Have they taught about the long consequences of what they are doing?
  • btreecat 2y ago
    I think content creators want to be compensated for their work that's being used for commercial purposes. I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.
    • ivanmontillam 2y ago
      Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for AI. Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights," make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents per volume.
      • affinepplan 2y ago
        yeah this sounds like it'll be reliably enforced for sure
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
      • InvidFlower 2y ago
        While that is cool in principal, I'm not sure how well it'd actually work in reality. First, there is the technical challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually determine how much influence a given piece of content has on the final weights? Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could game the training. Like have as much of the process happen via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. That would cover a lot of the fundamental knowledge and processes. Then you could fine-tune on copyrighted data. That might actually make it easier to see how much influence on the final weights that content has, but is also would probably be a lot less influence. There's a big difference between a painting of an apple being the main contribution to the concept of "apple" in an image model, vs mention of that painting corresponding to a few weights that just reference a bunch of other concepts that were learned via open data.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• m3kw9 2y ago
  Maybe this data constraint from data vs GPU constraint for China will force America to innovate. Maybe innovate in data generation
• tehjoker 2y ago
  private property is sacrosanct except when an exception that only applies to them it would make a billionaire richer
• tasuki 2y ago
  I heard the theory that Elon Musk has a significant control over the current US government. They're not best pals with Sam Altman. This seems like it might be a good way to see how much power Elon actually has over the government?
  • napsterbr 2y ago
    I think we are beyond the "theory" phase by now. Just yesterday I saw the president of a country advertising the products of a private company (Trump making an obvious marketing ploy for Tesla). How can this ever be acceptable?
    • dcchambers 2y ago
      > How can this ever be acceptable? Because the only people capable of holding him accountable won't do it. The system is broken. The US Government/Constitution depends too much on the assumption that people will do the right thing.
      • whatshisface 2y ago
        The failure relative to the original expectations seems to be that the other branches of government aren't fighting to retain their authority because the things they're being overridden to do align too well with what they would do themselves.
    • slt2021 2y ago
      I saw it even 4 years ago https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-takes-hybrid-jeep-for-a-joyride-at-white-house-not-a-bad-day-on-the-job/ https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-takes-hybrid-jeep-for-...
      • mattegan 2y ago
        > ...his speech, which was attended by the CEOs of dozens of the world's largest automakers... I don't recall Biden reading off a price sheet for a single corporation. Seems a bit different than what happened yesterday the White House.
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  DeepSeek/whoever training on OpenAI outputs is ... bad. OpenAI training on every content creator's outputs is ... good.
  • visarga 2y ago
    You say that, but the reality is that all open models rely heavily on synthetic data generated with ChatGPT. They don't like it, but it happens anyway. You can't really protect a public model from having its outputs exfiltrated. This started in 2023 when LLaMA 1 was released, and has been going strong ever since. How strong? there are 330K datasets on HuggingFace, many of them generated from OpenAI.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Did you miss the sarcasm?
    • Xelynega 2y ago
      And where did OpenAI get the data to generate those datasets?
• bxguff 2y ago
  clear attempt circumnavigate the clear copyright violations of the AI era and kick the can down the road.
• pmxi 2y ago
  Here's a direct link to the article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-13/openai-asks-white-house-for-relief-from-state-ai-rules https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-13/openai-as...
• ch4s3 2y ago
  I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies. This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
  • phh 2y ago
    Have you got any substance to that? So far the only copyright violation I've seen in the LLM world is Meta. (I'm not pretending they are alone though, and yes I expect Chinese companies to do that as well)
  • gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Welcome to the internet; where the only way to prevent it (considering 40% of internet traffic is automated) is to use DRM, with accessibility tools provided by client-side AI; or to create national internets with strong firewalls only allowing access to countries we have treaties with. That’s the future at this rate, and it sucks. (The status quo also sucks.)
  • parliament32 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can't, despite what IP holders would like you to believe. Like the last 50 years of piracy have taught us, it's effectively impossible (and probably immoral) to try to charge for copying something that's "free" to copy. It might make more sense to update copyright laws to match reality. For a music artist, for example, pennies from Spotify mean nothing -- the majority of their revenue comes from concerts/events, merchandise, and commercial licensing of their work.
  • borgdefenser 2y ago
    As a digital artist myself, it is quite simple. You have to sell physical objects. The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is the painting Salvator Mundi. It is no different than traditional art really, just at a different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on ebay right now. Picasso himself could have made 10 copies of the Weeping Woman to sell without that much effort either. The "real" Weeping Woman is the physical painting that Picasso did not make a copy of. The others are just knock off images. But the main problem remains. Selling art is really hard. AI art is already completely passé anyway. If anything the technology is regressing visually. Music was in a several decades long bull market in physical media sales that crashed and burned. Now we have gone back to the pre-music media bubble days but with much better distribution and marketing channels. Not a lot of people making a living playing ragtime piano or hoofers making a living tap dancing either. The real amusing thing to me is you never hear scultpure artist complain that they are in the training data sets. Probably because they know it is literally just free advertising for their real art.
• ihsw 2y ago
  [dead]
• fazeirony 2y ago
  the GOP: "states' rights! states' rights!!" also the GOP: "not those rights! only the rights we want to share"
  • epistasis 2y ago
    The unspoken part was always the states' rights to do what. Which of course was all about maintaining the economic differences that they preferred. Which, you know...
  • eunos 2y ago
    [flagged]
  • nomel 2y ago
    What's this in reference to? This is OpenAI asking, not the GOP. There's no GOP policy mentioned. From the article: > The Trump administration has generally signaled its intention to take a hands-off approach to regulating the technology.
• nick238 2y ago
  In the "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge, should you do it": > Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing Rules > Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human trial results with the federal government. > In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday, the Eliquis maker argued that the hundreds of human-testing-related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting America’s technological progress at a time when it faces renewed competition from China. Pfizer said the administration should consider providing some relief for pharmaceutical companies big and small from state rules – if and when enacted – in exchange for voluntary access to testing data. > Chris Lehane, Pfizer's vice president of global affairs, said in an interview, "China is engaged in remarkable progress in drug development by testing through Uyghur volunteers in the Xinjiang province. The US is ceding our strategic advantage by not using untapped resources sitting idle in detention facilities around the country." > George C. Zoley, Executive Chairman of GEO Group, said, "Our new Karnes ICE Processing Center has played an important role in helping ICE meeting the diverse policy priorities of four Presidential Administrations. We stand ready to continue to help the federal government, Pfizer, and other privately-held companies achieve their unmet needs through human trials in our new 1,328-bed Texas facility."
  • O5vYtytb 2y ago
    > > Uyghur volunteers "Volunteers" eh? That's one way to put it.
• bnchrch 2y ago
  Maybe in a present: - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist (China) that doesn't care about copyright - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about copyright (Internet) and a future where: - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated, impossible, redundant... And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an old rule no longer applies. (Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
  • showerst 2y ago
    Even if you believe that every one of these things is correct (which is a big _even_) -- It's a really bad idea to let private actors break the law, then decide not to punish them if it turns out to be useful enough. It's bad for competitors who didn't break the law, bad for future companies who have to gamble on if they're getting a pass at breaking the next big thing's law, and bad for parties who suffered losses they didn't expect because they were working within the law. If you want to throw out the copyright system I'm right there with you, but change the laws, don't just reward lawbreaking and cronyism.
    • bnchrch 2y ago
      Agreed! Though if you think about it laws typically change after we agree (at the grassroots level) they are irrelevant, not before.
  • mschuster91 2y ago
    > - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get better based on more information (regardless of who owns the rights to the original synapses firing) For that you need actual AGI and it's nowhere in sight other than in the dreams of a few doom prophets. Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot surpass its training data.
    • 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• baskinator 2y ago
  How big was the check that came with this request? For the right price their logo can go on the rose garden lawn.
  • WorldPeas 2y ago
    gpt-47 costs at least $1m/tok
    • earslap 2y ago
      we are working on <impossible problem stumping humanity>. We have considered the following path to find a solution. Are we on the right track? Only answer Yes or No. (1 week of GPUs whirring later) AI: Your (that will be $1 million, thank you)
• basisword 2y ago
  “Please help us. We’re only a little business worth $157 billion!” - The company ripping off everyone that’s ever written or drawn anything. Company’s like AirBnB and Uber breaking the rules, gaining control of the market, and then pushing up prices was bad. “Open” AI is just a whole other level of hubris.
  • pmdr 2y ago
    They do need help, they've yet to turn a profit.
    • worldsayshi 2y ago
      Would they want to turn a profit if they can invest?
    • jjulius 2y ago
      If you start a company based on a new-ish idea and you can't figure out how to turn a profit, that's on you.
      • Auracle 2y ago
        To be fair, it could be a matter of national security if AGI does ever happen. You'd very much want your country to be the first.
        • andrewflnr 2y ago
          That's closer to an argument for nationalizing the company than it is for shielding them from regulation.
    • frosting1337 2y ago
      Remember when they were a non-profit so that didn't matter? Ah..
      • presentation 2y ago
• greesil 2y ago
  Write a law. We don't have an emperor.
  • krapp 2y ago
    Are you sure about that?
• iteratethis 2y ago
  I'm disgusted by the mindset that companies should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to technology as impactful and revolutionary as AI. AI sucks up the collective blood, sweat and tears of human work without permission or compensation and then re-monetizes it. It's a model that is even more asymmetrical than Google Search, whom at least gives back some traffic to creators (if lucky). AI is going to decide on human lives if it drives your car or makes medical diagnoses or decisions. This needs regulation. AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the essence of information and communication in itself. This needs regulation, accountability, at least a discussion. As AI grows in its capability, it will have an enormous impact on the work force, both white collar and blue collar. It may lead to a lot of social unrest and a political breakdown. "Let's see what happens" is wildly irresponsible. You cannot point to foreign competition as a basis for a no-rule approach. You should start with rules for impactful/dangerous technology and then hold parties to account, both domestic and foreign. And if it is true that we're in a race to AGI, realize that this means the invention of infinite labor. Bigger than the industrial revolution and information age combined. Don't you think we should think that scenario through a little, rather than winging it? The inauguration had the tech CEOs lined up directly behind Trump, clearly signaling who runs the country. Its tech and its media. How can you possible have trust in a technology even more powerful ending up in ever richer and more autocratic hands? But I suppose the reality is that Altman should donate $100 million to Trump and tell him that he's the greatest man ever. Poof, regulation is gone.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • pessimizer 2y ago
    > AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the essence of information and communication in itself. This needs regulation, accountability, at least a discussion. We're going to eventually have to have a serious discussion about, and to generate a legal and moral framework covering, identity rights. I'm going to guess that people will be able to locally generate high-quality pornography of celebrities and people they know that will be indistinguishable from the real thing imminently; at most it's 5 years away. Getting hung up on the sex is a distraction. This is no different than anybody collecting a identifiable dossier on you, packaging it, and selling it. This has been a problem for everyone for the entire period of advertising on the internet, and before that with credit agencies and blacklists, and no progress has been made because it has been profitable for everybody for a long time. Websites got a few decisions about scraping, saying that they were protected to some extent from people scraping to duplicate a particular compilation of otherwise legally copyable information. Individuals are compilations of legally copyable information. We're going to need publication rights to our own selves. But like you say, we're not discussing any of this. Rich people are just doing what they want, and paying the appropriate politicians to pretend not to understand what's going on. Any pushback? Just Say China A Lot.
• timewizard 2y ago
  > OpenAI also proposed that AI companies get access to government-held data, which could include health-care information, Lehane said. Yea, straight up, go fuck yourselves. You want copyright laws changed to vouchsafe your straight up copyright whitewashing and now you just want medical data "because." Pay for it or go away. I'm tired of these technoweenies with their hands out. Peter Thiel needs a permanent vacation.
  • VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
    > You want copyright laws changed to vouchsafe your straight up copyright whitewashing I'll support this if it means that Mickey Mouse finally goes into the public domain and fucks Disney.
• sd9 2y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks “freedom to learn” is an anthropomorphising euphemism?
• cratermoon 2y ago
  Buried the lede: > OpenAI also reiterated its call for the government to take steps to support AI infrastructure investments and called for copyright reform, arguing that America’s fair use doctrine is critical to maintaining AI leadership. OpenAI and other AI developers have faced numerous copyright lawsuits over the data used to build their models.
• JohnFen 2y ago
  I really hope OpenAI fails in doing this. If this usage is allowed, then it means that there is no path towards me being OK with publishing anything on the internet again.
• JKCalhoun 2y ago
  I'm assuming this has zero effect on non-US AI companies?
• tmnvix 2y ago
  I've heard so many ridiculous stories about 'AI' that I'm at the point where I initially took this to mean the LLM and not the company had made the request. I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future.
  • dmalik 2y ago
    > I've heard so many ridiculous stories about 'AI' that I'm at the point where I initially took this to mean the LLM and not the company had made the request. Only through its human bots > I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future. AI human manipulation could be a thing to watch out for.
• gitpusher 2y ago
  HAHAHA. Remember when Sam was absolutely frothing at the mouth to "regulate AI" two years ago? > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-artificial-intelligence-regulation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-... > https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt-ai-regulation-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• hello_computer 2y ago
  https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY
• grahar64 2y ago
  Well funded companies want regulations because it stops up and coming companies from competing. Now they want exemptions from those regulations because it would be too restrictive.
• sunshine-o 2y ago
  Funny how fast those AI prophets went from: - The government need to prepare because soon they will need to give money to all those people we made obsolete and unemployed. And there is nothing to stop us. to: - We need money from the government to do that thing we told you about.
  • disqard 2y ago
    This needs to be repeated, over and over: These grifters started with one narrative, and have done a full 180. The Internet --> Web 2.0 --> algorithmic feeds progression has destroyed our collective ability to focus and to retain any memories (and the media being goldfish-like doesn't help either).
• steveBK123 2y ago
  The right loves states rights, unless it conflicts with their personal preferences.
• light_triad 2y ago
  It coincides with this: OpenAI calls DeepSeek ‘state-controlled,’ calls for bans on ‘PRC-produced’ models https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/13/openai-calls-deepseek-state-controlled-calls-for-bans-on-prc-produced-models/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/13/openai-calls-deepseek-stat... On HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779
  • xvector 2y ago
    Really funny to see Sam whining about Elon "playing unfair" while attempting to do this with DeepSeek.
    • nonethewiser 2y ago
      Why isnt he doing this with Elon?
    • jryan49 2y ago
      It's almost like these guys will say anything at anytime if it serves their purposes (regardless of what they believe or how consistent they are).
    • throwaway462134 2y ago
      [dead]
• secondary_op 2y ago
  Free market y all ! OpenAI calls DeepSeek 'state-controlled,' calls for bans https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355779
  • thrance 2y ago
    It is the free market though. That's what inevitably happens when locks put in place in the past to prevent rampant wealth and power concentration get blown up. A truly free market always devolves into a bunch of oligarchs gaining too much power and dictating their laws.
    • gizzlon 2y ago
      Someone else posted here that instead of talking about "free markets" we should talk about "competitive markets".
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• hsuduebc2 2y ago
  Regulations were convenient to slow down competitors—you know, the ones you heavily lobbied for—it was all great. But now that you've done your part and others are finally catching up, suddenly it's all about easing restrictions to protect your lead? Beautiful.
• ChrisArchitect 2y ago
  Related: Google’s comments on the U.S. AI Action Plan https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/google-us-ai-action-plan-comments/ https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/googl...
• ArthurStacks 2y ago
  All these whiney creatives who feel threatened just need to suck it up and deal with it. Even if they got their way in the US, another app in another country will just use their data without permission. All they are doing is ensuring those apps wouldnt be American.
  • giraffe_lady 2y ago
    What do you mean by "deal with it?" Because to me it looks like they're dealing with it by joining in solidarity with other artists, raising awareness about how this affects them and us and lobbying for regulation they think would improve the situation. I guess you meant they should deal with it by just letting it happen to them quietly and without a fight? Is that how you would deal with your livelihood being preventably and unnecessarily destroyed for someone else's enrichment? Maybe, but artists are not overall as cowardly as programmers. > All they are doing is ensuring those apps wouldnt be American. Maybe these whiny americans just need to suck it up and deal with it?
    • warkdarrior 2y ago
      How would awareness and regulation in US solve this worldwide problem?
    • ArthurStacks 2y ago
      Deal with it as in them accepting there is nothing they can do to stop it. Other countries arent going to follow whatever laws they manage to get in place in the US.
      • giraffe_lady 2y ago
        So not deal with it so much as just shut up about it?
        • ArthurStacks 2y ago
          It's just a case that nothing can be done about it. They can protest about it, but a European, Japanese, Chinese, or Russia company will just continue oblivious that there even was any protest. Commercial creatives have to accept it is happening and adapt.
• rvz 2y ago
  OpenAI (2023): Don't even bother trying to compete against us, you will not win and you will lose. OpenAI (2025): pLeAse bAn dEEpSeEk!!11!, bAn poWerFulL oPen wEight Ai mOdeLs!!1
• WiSaGaN 2y ago
  Before Deepseek, Meta open-sourced a good LLM. At the time, the narrative pushed by OpenAI and Anthropic was centered on 'safety.' Now, with the emergence of Deepseek, OpenAI and Anthropic have pivoted to a national security narrative. It is becoming tiresome to watch these rent seekers attacking open source to justify their valuations.
  • eleveriven 2y ago
    Now that Deepseek is in the mix, it's suddenly about national security. Convenient.
    • clown_strike 2y ago
      They said all the same nonsense about Tiktok.
    • genewitch 2y ago
      I really don't have a spare terabyte to save all the "weights available" so I hope someone is. I already have 340GB of language model weights.
  • mr90210 2y ago
    > rent seekers Finally someone described them by who they are, rent f* seekers.
    • KKKKkkkk1 2y ago
      So I asked ChatGPT what is a rent seeker and it said it's someone who seeks to make money without contributing anything. I don't think that fits OpenAI. I think you're overlooking ChatGPT, for example, which was developed by OpenAI.
• j_timberlake 2y ago
  If AI actually reaches human-level intelligence in the next few years, the Pentagon and congress are going to start yelling about National Security and grabbing control over the whole industry, so I doubt state regulations are going to matter much anyway. (And if it doesn't reach human-level intelligence, then OpenAI's value will pop like a balloon.)
• darkwizard42 2y ago
  For those who have used the image generation models and even the text models to create things, there is no way you can look at the Disney-look-alike images and NOT see that as copyright infringement...
  • ranger_danger 2y ago
    I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing. Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI. In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation. So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.
  • nomdep 2y ago
    IANAL but for copyright infringement you have to distribute it, and AI image generation is like asking someone to paint a cartoon mouse in a wall of your living room
    • Xelynega 2y ago
      Is it not more like lossy image decompression? Just because the jpeg you're distributing isn't the same bytes as the one I have copyright to doesn't mean you're not infringing my copyright. You're still taking my copyrighted image, running it through an algorithm, and then distributing the results.
    • nickthegreek 2y ago
      AI generation is also like asking a professional to design a logo for your corporation. It all matters what the license you are getting to the outputs. If the Image Generator is saying that outputs from their service can be used for commercial purposes, it isnt like your example at all.
• arealaccount 2y ago
  Isn’t Elon Musk sort of in a tiff with OpenAI, and also seemingly very influential to Trump? I feel like OpenAI is going to have to make some concessions to get favor from the Trump administration.
• stargrazer 2y ago
  So, why not pay the price of each copyrighted work ingested by the model?
  • thisisnotauser 2y ago
    I mean, China won't have to, so the AI race would still be over.
    • noman-land 2y ago
      China also doesn't have to care about the will of its people, human rights, freedom of speech, and a bunch of other pesky things that get in the way of doing whatever the fuck you want to people for personal gain.
      • thisisnotauser 2y ago
        Seems like it'd be bad to let them win then.
        • hotep99 2y ago
          We can let them dominate us but feel smug and morally superior in the process.
      • latentcall 2y ago
        Neither does mine so we’re on equal footing!
    • kadoban 2y ago
      So make the AI models public goods, developed by the government. Why should companies be getting rich on everyone else's work?
      • thisisnotauser 2y ago
        Well, I guess most copyright we're talking about here is IP owned by very wealthy corporations, to wit: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-property-rules-help-the-rich https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-intellectual-pro... So I'm not sure that it would really change the status quo for a different group of already rich people to profit off of art created largely by the working poor and owned largely by another group of already rich people. I guess if you think the government can accomplish what you propose, sure. But seems like that's not going to happen. Except maybe in China, and it sounds like that might be even worse for everyone. Thus, it really seems like there's a solid point here that abandoning copyright to allow private investors to get rich stealing art from other rich people who really just stole it from poor people anyways is better than not doing that.
• AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  "If what we're doing is not fair use, then we can't operate"? OK, so? The world doesn't owe you the ability to operate the way you are. So whether it breaks your business model has no bearing on the question, which is, "is that fair use, or not?"
• cytocync 2y ago
  [dead]
• clipsy 2y ago
  Sounds great!
• esafak 2y ago
  > National security hinges on unfettered access to AI training data, OpenAI says. If it's a Republican administration, yell "national security". If it's Democratic, claims it's in the name of child safety.
  • clipsy 2y ago
    "[N]ational security" and "child safety" both work quite well on both parties in reality; that's why they're so popular.
  • 1659447091 2y ago
    More like "national security/America first" vs "climate change". Or just use "think about the children" for them both.
• aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Maybe these idiot CEOs shouldn't have screamed from the rooftops about how they can't wait till AI lets them fire all the plebs, then maybe someone would actually care if their company is over or not
• userbinator 2y ago
  I think there will be a huge change in public perception of copyright in general, as increasingly more people realise that everything is a derivative work.
  • fishcrackers 2y ago
    [dead]
  • beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
    Most people find the traditional explanation for copyright, "everything emerges from the commons and eventually returns to the commons, so artists and creators should be entitled to ownership of intellectual property for a limited amount of time." The problem becomes when "limited" is stretched from 5 years from moment of publishing, say, to an artist's life + 150 years. Most people find the former reasonable and the latter ridiculous.
    • torginus 2y ago
      The problem is (almost) everything the US has a competitive edge on is based on copyright. I'm in Europe, and during the past few weeks with these tariff upsets, I kinda realized the only thing I use or own that are US-made are computers and software. If someone could hack into Apple, download the schematics of their chips and the source for their OS, and then post it on the internet, after which a third party could sell commercial products based on said data, there wouldn't be a software/hardware economy around of very long.
      • beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
        > If someone could hack into Apple, download the schematics of their chips and the source for their OS, and then post it on the internet, after which a third party could sell commercial products based on said data, there wouldn't be a software/hardware economy around of very long. Part of this tension arises out of a social understanding: we want competition precisely because we value the way it keeps an industry/nation "alive" --- there will be "winners and losers"--- and yet we also want to balance that with a coherent idea of ownership such that it's not just a complete lawless free-for-all. In other words, we don't want intellectual property to be too strong because it's economically and culturally stultifying. Business interests naturally seek the complete nullification of competition, so they promote as strong as possible copyright protections; while the vox populi understands that common culture is the primordial goo that all intellectual property arises out of and returns to and finds copyright at base rather arbitrary. The legal, political, and social, understanding of copyright we have has arisen out of balancing these competing interests (themselves in productive competition) understanding that finding the right balance is precisely what has made a country like America, for example, so successful. That the balance seems so out of whack in the direction of large and monopoly seeking business suggests the ways in which large business interests exerts undo influence on the legal and political landscape.
• BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Putting legal issues aside for a moment, I argue copyrighted material should be considered fair use simply by virtue of the enormous societal benefits LLMs/AI bring in making the vast expanse of human knowledge accessible. It’s a major step forward for humanity.
  • cgio 2y ago
    And what is the argument on making that knowledge accessible via LLMs vs directly? Why was it not accessible before?
    • nnnnico 2y ago
      its a radically different approach to knowledge search and exploration than the previous "direct" alternatives like search engines/indexes/nlp
      • Xelynega 2y ago
        The search engine wasn't the problem though, it was paywalling the information so less people had access to it. How do for-profit models served by for-profit companies make information that was previously "pay to learn" more accessible?
      • anticensor 2y ago
        LLM is an NLP approach.
  • nickthegreek 2y ago
    Sure. And all outputs should be public domain and the service should be free.
• Animats 2y ago
  The demand here for federal preemption of state law has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is entirely federal level today. It has to do with preventing the use of AI to enable various forms of oppression.[1] Plus the usual child porno stuff. What AI companies are really worried about is a right of appeal from decisions made by a computer. The EU has that. "Individuals should not be subject to a decision that is based solely on automated processing (such as algorithms) and that is legally binding or which significantly affects them."[2] This moves the cost of LLM errors from the customer to the company offering the service. [1] https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2024/09/california-ai-safety-regulations-bills/ https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2024/09/california... [2] https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/rules-business-and-organisations/dealing-citizens/are-there-restrictions-use-automated-decision-making_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
  • dmix 2y ago
    > This moves the cost of LLM errors from the customer to the company offering the service. So does that mean AI companies are going to have insurance/litigators like doctors and models will be heavily lawyered to add more extensive guardrails. I'm assuming this means not just OpenAI but any service that uses LLM APIs or open models? For ex: If a finance business pays to use an AI bot that automates interacting with desktop UIs and that bot accidentally deletes an important column in an Excel spreadsheet, then the AI company is liable?
    • therealpygon 2y ago
      Conversely, would you suggest that if an AI driver has a programming error and kills 20 people, that the person who reserved the car should be required to enter into a “User Agreement” that makes them take responsibility?
      • lvturner 2y ago
        If it's a "self driving car" that the person "owns" - Yes. If it's a "Taxi service" that the person is using - No. If it's a car they own, they (should) have the ability to override the AI system and avoid the accident (ignoring nuances) - therefore owning responsibility. If it's a Taxi they would be in a position where they can't interfere with the operation of the system - therefore the taxi company owns the responsibility. Rightly or wrongly, this model of intervention capability is what that I'd use to answer these types of questions.
• mojomark 2y ago
  LLM race may be over, but the AI race surely isn't. My baby seems to have grown into a fully functioning intelligence without reading the entire content of the internet. AI is not equivalent to LLMs, silly, silly child.
• Swizec 2y ago
  Funfact: The reason Hollywood is in California is because Edison’s camera patents didn’t apply there. Altman might actually have a good point – if your competition doesn’t care about your laws, you’re in trouble. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/51722/thomas-edison-drove-film-industry-california https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/51722/thomas-edison-drov...
• janalsncm 2y ago
  It seems really weird that Congress isn’t making a law about this. Instead, we’re asking courts to contort old laws to apply to something which is pretty different from the things they were originally intended for. Or just asking the executive to make law by diktat. Maybe letting the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world will work out. Maybe not. This issue is too complicated for Congress to handle? Too bad. Offloading it to the president or a judge doesn’t solve that problem. The world is becoming more and more complicated and we need smart people who can figure out how things work, not a retirement community.
• sashank_1509 2y ago
  Still not convinced how a model training on data, is not the same as a human looking at that data and then using it indirectly as it’s now a part of his knowledge base
  • sumedh 2y ago
    The scale is different. Should the rules for owning a gun which can fire 1 round per hour be the same as a gun which can fire 1 million rounds per hour?
• hereme888 2y ago
  Move to a different state. Is it so unrealistic? Many companies and people leave beautiful Cali due to over-regulation.
• holografix 2y ago
  “We want more regulation! AI is too dangerous, too powerful for any person off the street to use!” Meanwhile exact same guy in Europe: “Less regulation! You are strangling our innovation!”
• raminf 2y ago
  Wonder if the rules will protect the information providers or the consumers.
  • zombot 2y ago
    You have one guess.
• henry2023 2y ago
  I just canceled my OpenAI subscriptions over this.
• sfmike 2y ago
  Closed ai
• chvid 2y ago
  The full 15-page proposal from OpenAI to the White House: https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539-4653-b297-8bcf6e5f7686/openai-response-ostp-nsf-rfi-notice-request-for-information-on-the-development-of-an-artificial-intelligence-ai-action-plan.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539...
• hbfdhfdhadfhnfa 2y ago
  First they should investigate the fake suicide!
• austin-cheney 2y ago
  A slippery slope to eliminate copyright out right. The argument made is that AI is somehow more special and will otherwise lose to competition with China. The flaw there is that AI is not more special than any other endeavor while all other American markets must equally compete with China. What that failure means is that when anything is exceptional then everything becomes exceptional because the economic conditions apply equally and therefore bypassing copyright protections applies equally to anybody facing external competition.
  • hansmayer 2y ago
    All of this, plus it's not even AI in the generic sense, it's just very advanced text generation, or a certain application of AI. So the chinese Gemini will offer to summarise e-mails at lower cost, who cares?
  • glimshe 2y ago
    Copyrights are more often used to defend large corporations than small creators. As long everybody has a level playing field and individuals benefit from weaker copyright laws, it might actually make the world a better place. I'm not arguing for the complete elimination of copyright protections, but today's laws, in particular copyright duration, are immoral. This is as good of a starting point as any assuming OpenAI isn't the only who gets to benefit from it.
    • hansmayer 2y ago
      ...right, lets make sure we protect the little, undercapitalised startup OpenAI from the large corporations holding them back :)
    • austin-cheney 2y ago
      > Copyrights are more often used to defend large corporations than small creators. Are there numbers to this or is it empty conjecture? The reality is that resulting civil judgments apply the same regardless of owner size, which benefits small owners disproportionately to large owners with regard to windfall versus regular revenue. That is OpenAI’s principle concern: they don’t want to get sued into bankruptcy by numerous small rights owners.
• quintes 2y ago
  Didn’t read but No
• faragon 2y ago
  If a person can read copyrighted material and produce derivative works, why not an AI?
  • piracymadelegal 2y ago
    Sure, so, can I make and sell my own Lilo and Stitch movie now? It'll be even better than the one about to release, and all that means is I'll deviate even less.
    • thedevilslawyer 2y ago
      This was settled prior to LLMs - you can't do that because the characters names are copyrighted. LLMs change nothing here.
  • hansmayer 2y ago
    Because - well a person can read copyrighted material it legally obtained the rights to, for example by purchasing a hard or electronic copy of the book or magazine. Alternatively, and according to the laws worldwide, if a person were to engage in massive theft for the purpose of "reading" all available copyrighted materials in the world, by obtaining copyrighted material without permission and consent of the copyright holder, they would be at least paying heavy fines, and in most jurisdictions also spend at least a few years in jail. Why should the same not apply to corporations and their executives?
    • jemmyw 2y ago
      I don't think there is actually a law anywhere that says you need to obtain the rights to copyright material to read/view them. The person or organisation showing it to you, which might be yourself, needs to have a license. Otherwise things like libraries couldn't exist and you wouldn't be allowed to lend books or even have books in your house that other family members can read. Not saying that particularly impacts your argument about OpenAI, because an LLM in training is not a person. It is transforming data from one format to another for later consumption by people. Therefore they probably would need a license.
• hansmayer 2y ago
  I just wish they understood they are limited not by the content available, but by the intrinsic characteristics of the architecture and algorithms of LLMs. It's just not the AGI that will magically open it's eyes one day.The sooner we stop burning billions of dollars on it, the better.
• xrd 2y ago
  The follow-on prompt was "add the word freedom a lot more."
  • hansmayer 2y ago
    ... sprinkle in a lot of "strategy" too, to make the reader seem like they are smart. Lay "America/Americans" even thicker, to combine with the sense of higher purpose, i.e. patriotism.
• nomilk 2y ago
  Wonder how much the addition of copyrighted material affects how smart the resulting model is. If it's even 20% better LLM makers could be forced out of the US into jurisdictions that allow use of copyrighted data. I suspect most LLM users will ~always choose the smartest model.
  • regularjack 2y ago
    All of it is copyrighted material
  • noosphr 2y ago
    The jump from llama2 to llama3 had something to do with meta downloading every textbook ever published and using it as training data. The arguments by meta so far in that court case are absolutely terrible and I'm half expecting to see the world's first trillion dollar copyright infringement award.
    • Palmik 2y ago
      Incorrect. Llama 1 trained on books3 dataset.
  • srg0 2y ago
    > most LLM users will ~always choose the smartest model Most LLM users will choose the cheapest model which is good enough. I think that LLMs' performance is already "good enough" for a lot of applications. We're in the diminishing returns part of the curve. There are two other concerns: 1. being able to run the model on trusted infrastructure locally (so some jerk won't turn it off on a whim, and the data will remain safe and comply with the local data protection laws and policies) 2. having good tools to create AI applications (like how easy it is to fine-tune it to customer needs) > how much the addition of copyrighted material affects how smart the resulting model is Copyrighted material improve the models, not by making it smart, but more factually correct, because it will be trained on reputable, reliable and up-to-date sources.
• csomar 2y ago
  > An export control strategy that exports democratic AI: For countries seeking access to American AI, we propose a strategy that would apply a commercial growth lens—both Total and Serviceable Addressable Markets—to proactively promote the global adoption of American AI systems and with them, the freedoms they create. At the same time, the strategy would use export controls to protect America’s AI lead, including by making updates to the AI diffusion rule. What a bunch of gibberish hot garbage.
  • isaacremuant 2y ago
    It works for comedy without changing a word. Impressive.
• iamsaitam 2y ago
  If this happens, I hope they get banned in Europe. This is unacceptable.
• thiago_fm 2y ago
  This is so wrong in so many levels. But given that Trump clearly seems aligned with technobros, I wouldn't be surprised. This will be good for the rest of the world, though. Other countries will be less likely to be aligned to US, end of US imperialism has been just speed up little by little.
• regularjack 2y ago
  The arrogance of these people is without end.
• antonkar 2y ago
  Basically stole almost whole output of humanity both dead and alive, put it in their Frankenstein Monsters’ ever growing brains and now want to let em roam unsupervised longer and longer (AI agents) and continue to steal things. Taking away human freedoms and giving em to agents 101
  • thedevilslawyer 2y ago
    What stealing? None of the original content is gone. Perhaps "infringement" is a more apt word.
    • antonkar 2y ago
      Yes, if you’ll infringe like they, you’ll be in jail forever
      • thedevilslawyer 2y ago
        Ignoring the non-sequitur on jail, I guess you're affirming that it's not stealing?
        • antonkar 2y ago
          Most people will call it stealing, lawyers will find a way to call it differently. So, you’re affirming that you can steal almost the whole creative output of humanity and not sit in jail your whole life?) They not just stole or infringed, they profit from it, replace and compete with the very from whom they stole (or whom they infringed as you prefer calling it). The model is like their private library they don’t allow you to enter or see, instead they have a strict librarian who spits hallucinated quotes at you. The problem is in that. They are not Robbin Hoods who steal to share with the poor. They steal from the poor to make the rich richer. To enrich themselves, grab human freedoms and give those freedoms and more to AI agents. You cannot steal the whole output of humanity and put in your brain. AI agents and companies already have massively more rights and freedoms than you and it’s gonna get much worse. There is a narrow way through dystopias because intelligence is inherently static and non-agentic (think static 4d spacetime of a universe), we can open the Library and empower people by making models explorable like 3D games
• deepsummer 2y ago
  I think an AI should be treated like a human. A human can consume copyright material (possibly after paying for it), but not reproduce it. I don't see any reason why the same can't be true for an AI.
  • actionfromafar 2y ago
    Then, we should also put the AI in jail when it's breaking copyright laws. Or being an accessory to breaking copyright law.
    • deepsummer 2y ago
      An AI that's breaking copyright laws shouldn't be legal. So yes, it's kind of like putting it in jail.
  • nness 2y ago
    The issue is so much about consumption of copyright material, but acquisition of that material. Like a real person, AI companies need to adhere to IP and license or purchase the materials that they wish to consume. If AI companies licensed all materials they acquired for training purposes, this would be a non-issue. OpenAI are looking for a free pass to break copyright law, and through that, also avoid any issues that would arise through reproduction.
    • Palmik 2y ago
      A real person wouldn't have to pay to read random blog, Reddit comments, StackOverflow answers or code on GitHub (many open source licenses do not imply license for training). They might have to pay for books, or use a library. Should these cases be treated differently? If so, it might lead to more closed internet with even more paywalls.
      • alphabettsy 2y ago
        I think those are less of an issue. They want to train on paywalled news articles, magazines and books. In addition to other media that the average person would have to pay for or would otherwise have limitations applied.
• srg0 2y ago
  Copyrighted material includes works by authors from outside the US. By Berne convention, the exceptions which any country may introduce must not "conflict with a normal exploitation of the work" and "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author". So if at least one French author does license their work for AI training, then any exception of this kind will harm their legitimate interests and rob them of potential income from normal exploitation of the work. If the US can harm authors from other countries, then other countries may be willing to reciprocate to American copyright holders, and introduce exceptions which allow free use of the US copyrighted material for some specific purposes they deem important. IANAL, but it is a slippery slope, and it may hurt everyone. Who has more to lose? And I hope that Mistral.AI takes note.
  • thedevilslawyer 2y ago
    > then any exception of this kind will harm their legitimate interests Pray tell what legitimate interest of the author is harmed by LLM's training on that work? No one is publishing the authors book.
    • Palmik 2y ago
      What I think the parent meant is the interest to sell license to others to train on their data.
      • srg0 2y ago
        Exactly. Some copyright holders do license their work for AI training. It certainly happens in the music industry, but I don't see why texts would be any different. The exception would harm their business.
        • thedevilslawyer 2y ago
          Example please? It's always been fair use to train on accessible data. It's how for eg: so much of research has been going on for decades.
    • 2y ago
• ksynwa 2y ago
  I don't think I've ever read anything this disingenuous
• megamix 2y ago
  Can anyone also use copyrighted source code, e.g. from OpenAI?
• megamix 2y ago
  Can anyone also use copyrighted source code, e.g. from OpenAI?
• someothherguyy 2y ago
  Yeah, shorten the terms of copyright on original works by about 90%, and call it a win for everyone except for rights holders.
  • fmajid 2y ago
    Rights holders are the economically marginal tail wagging the dog due to the disproportionate political power of content industries. All of Hollywood's annual revenues represented 2 weeks of telcos' SMS revenue back when you paid per message.
• blogabegonija 2y ago
  [dead]
• bambax 2y ago
  The original link has apparently been changed to a content-free Yahoo post, for some reason only known to "moderators", which makes existing comments bizarre to read. The original link pointed to this OpenAI document: https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-us-ai-action-plan/ https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-for-the-u... It contains this remarkable phrase: > For innovation to truly create new freedoms, America’s builders, developers, and entrepreneurs—our nation’s greatest competitive advantage—must first have the freedom to innovate in the national interest. I don't think people need "new freedoms". They need their existing freedoms, that are threatened everywhere and esp. by the new administration, to be respected. And I would argue that America's greatest strength isn't their "builders"; it's its ability to produce BS at such a massive scale (and believe in it). This OpenAI "proposal" is a masterpiece of BS. An American masterpiece.
• fmajid 2y ago
  Well, if we finally have hundred-billion-dollar corporations pushing back on the copyfight around the continual expansion of copyright (e.g. the congressman for Disney, Sonny Bono) or abusive laws like DMCA, that's a welcome development.
• Yizahi 2y ago
  Steal content and then ask god for forgiveness. Works like a charm :)
• laststand2 2y ago
  [dead]
• Havoc 2y ago
  >liability protections The industry that just ran roughshod over a couple million copyright holders intentionally despite knowing it is on legal shaky ground now wants liability protection for itself? Bunch of immoral shysters...
• ragebol 2y ago
  If you can't play by the rules, don't play the game.
• code_runner 2y ago
  Its sort of crazy to think about how big tech companies have a smaller and smaller window to be a "fun" and interesting story/idea. Facebook was pretty fun for a bit, google was obviously an idea factory for a while and even stuff like the doodles were a big deal. Stuff like Uber and AirBnB were controversial at some levels but still generally "game changers" in specific industries and it was fun/interesting to be early adopters. OpenAI was under the radar IRT public consciousness pre-gpt3.5.... we all had fun w/ chatGPT... and then immediately OAI starts generating headlines that are not fun/inventive/quirky. A lot of regulatory stuff, governments around the world. Instant globalization + general horror.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • interactivecode 2y ago
    There is so much "fun" to be had without new regulation shooting you down immediately. It's just that when you (or your niche) gets to a large enough size where it (might) impact enough people negatively. Regulations are needed. And if you ask me very sensible. OpenAI has about 400 million weekly users at the moment. Can you imagine the regulations you would have to comply with if you want to serve 400 million sandwiches? or just run a parking lot for 400 million cars or literally anything else.
    • enriquec 2y ago
      IMO - this mentality kills good* innovation.
      • baconbrand 2y ago
        Innovation is not an inherently good thing.
      • madsbuch 2y ago
        Yep, let's wing serving 400 million sandwiches - whatever the risk that the US population dies of salmonella or listeria. Anyways, one of the things about growing up is realizing that there is more to the world than just innovation.
• trevor-e 2y ago
  The easiest logical way I can make sense of this problem is to apply it to humans. Copyrighted material has tremendously impacted my thinking and work, but I had to pay to access it. And as long as I'm not publishing copies of the copyrighted work, derivative work seems to be fair use. This seems fair for everyone, if they want to train on a resource then they should pay for it. The only angle I can see this working for OpenAI is pushing the anti-China national security threat narrative, which I expect to see a lot more of this year (especially with this administration). While I personally hate that, I can definitely see how AI + drones are the obvious future in warfare, so I don't think it's that far-fetched to work.
• ein0p 2y ago
  Something is telling me getting anything favorable out of the White House with sama at the helm is going to be extremely difficult for OpenAI: https://x.com/sama/status/787847722514526208 https://x.com/sama/status/787847722514526208
• SebFender 2y ago
  This dudes (can't write his name) way of thinking on content disrupts fair use by scaling copyrighted material consumption without clear boundaries - and somebody needs to stop this. Unlike human-driven transformation, AI replicates patterns, creating derivative works that compete with originals. OpenAI profits from this without compensating creators, undermining economic incentives for human creativity altogether. All this instead of relying on fair use, it should pursue licensing to uphold intellectual property rights - and if that doesn't work it then means the business plan is bad. It's just like saying - "If I need to pay for the food, I won't be able to make my plates." Bad plan - bad business.
• bhanks 2y ago
  Begs the question what the founder’s intent was with the 10th amendment. I’d say it covers AI until you get federal dollars tied to it.
• zombot 2y ago
  Now that the government is openly corrupt, they even have a chance of success.