5 ms·

If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this. I'm glad the NYT

If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this. I'm glad the NYT is fighting them. They've infringed the rights of almost every news outlet but someone has to bring this case.

johnwheeler 1y ago
Exactly. And the OpenAI corporates speak acting like they give a shit about our best interests. Give me a break, Sam Altman. How stupid do you think everyone is? They have proven that they are the most untrustworthy company on the planet And this isn't AI fear speaking. This is me raging at Sam Altman for spreading so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to get investments. The rest of us have to suffer for the last two years, worrying about losing our jobs, only to find out the AGI lie is complete bullsh*t.
- NewsaHackO 1y ago
  To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. This whole thing is akin to when Apple was refusing to unlock phones for the FBI. Of course, Apple profits by having people think that they take privacy seriously, and they demonstrate it by protecting users’ privacy. Same thing here; OpenAI needs chats to have some expectation of privacy, especially because a large use case of AI is personal advice on things. So they are fighting to make sure it's true.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. I don't know about NYT's privacy policy, because that's not really the industry they're in, but they did admit to fabricating a story that led to a now 2-year-long war, so.
    - NewsaHackO 1y ago
      Yes, but I think at least in this instance, OpenAI needs people to think that what they ask ChatGPT is private. They will have no business model if everyone thought that whatever private question they ask could fall into the hands of a media company and be used for anything. Also, at least when I signed up, you had to provide either a highly trusted email address or phone number to sign up, so your identity is definitely attached to whatever question you ask ChatGPT. They know how high the stakes are for them in this suit.
    - rockskon 1y ago
      Which story is this?
      - ferngreen 1y ago
        The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé https://share.google/2HB4zPEGi7x3JTYyj https://share.google/2HB4zPEGi7x3JTYyj
      - ferngreen 1y ago
        And their followups https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-podcast-camera/ https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-pod... https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-violence-kibbutz-beeri/ https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-vio...
    - xpe 1y ago
      > Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. Both -1 and -1,000,000 are negative numbers. We need to be careful and mindful of our framing. Saying "X is bad" is a drastic oversimplification and not necessarily useful. Pointing at any one company and saying "bad" doesn't move the needle much in terms of figuring out how to steer us towards better outcomes. For that, we have to identify incentives and understand motivations.
  - latexr 1y ago
    > To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. Lavabit opted to stop operating rather than give the FBI access to client emails. https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/snowdens-e-mail-provider-discusses-pressure-from-fbi-to-disclose-data.html https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
- code_for_monkey 1y ago
  You got downvoted for this? That many people are doing 'Leave Sam Altman alone!'? kinda wild
  - johnwheeler 1y ago
    It's weird. It went up and down and up and down. Controversial POV. But thanks for the support. Sam Altman's just too dishonest. It's been said time and time again by so many people, by Paul Graham, Ilya Sutskeve, everybody's telling everybody he's dishonest. When are we going to wake up and get this guy out of there?
scotty79 1y ago
[flagged]
- bitpush 1y ago
  > They should sell their stuff by mail if they hate open culture so much. Does open culture mean free? Are you willing to work for free? It is perfectly OK to sell goods in exchange for money, which is what NYT is doing. I dont know why you're so upset with it. You cant walk into Apple Store and except to walk away with a free iPhone. Then why are you expecting to "walk" into nytimes' website and walk away with free article?
  - scotty79 1y ago
    Open means open. Plenty of people make money in the open culture in way less obnoxious ways than NYT. What NYT does is crapping at the place where I am, but building a wall and charging for passage to a place that does stink little bit less. I don't mind them having such place, or even charging for access. What I mind is making mine actively worse. Do whatever you want and charge however much you want. But for the love of God don't advertise in my face using free space that I inhabit. My attention costs way more than your content. Don't be surprised that when you do I will disregard completely your wishful thinking about payment. What I need is one checkbox in Google ecosystem (and/or my browser) that says "Never show links to paywalled content". Give me that and all my beef with NYT and similar garbage factories is gone in a blink of an eye.
    - cestith 1y ago
      That sounds like a feature request to Google, not an indictment of the NYT.
      - scotty79 1y ago
        Same way that a feature request to the police is not an indictment of the criminals.
  - pembrook 1y ago
terminalshort 1y ago
They infringed nothing. Two judges have already ruled that training on copyrighted data is fair use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr...
- JCM9 1y ago
  The issue is, in part, a concern that ChatGPT responses are often just simple derivations of the original content in ways that wouldn’t be considered fair use.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  But displaying regurgitations of very similar content may not be fair use. Fair use is a very delicate affair. One factor is whether the modified work poses as a market replacement for the original work.
- zeofig 1y ago
  Two idiot judges.
  - wkat4242 1y ago
    Agreed
- OhioMan2943 1y ago
  [flagged]
- freejazz 1y ago
  Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.
  - terminalshort 1y ago
    No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.
protocolture 1y ago
People pretending to own Data that should belong to the commons is the larger issue.

johnwheeler 1y ago

Exactly. And the OpenAI corporates speak acting like they give a shit about our best interests. Give me a break, Sam Altman. How stupid do you think everyone is? They have proven that they are the most untrustworthy company on the planet And this isn't AI fear speaking. This is me raging at Sam Altman for spreading so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to get investments. The rest of us have to suffer for the last two years, worrying about losing our jobs, only to find out the AGI lie is complete bullsh*t.

NewsaHackO 1y ago
To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. This whole thing is akin to when Apple was refusing to unlock phones for the FBI. Of course, Apple profits by having people think that they take privacy seriously, and they demonstrate it by protecting users’ privacy. Same thing here; OpenAI needs chats to have some expectation of privacy, especially because a large use case of AI is personal advice on things. So they are fighting to make sure it's true.
- immibis 1y ago
  Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. I don't know about NYT's privacy policy, because that's not really the industry they're in, but they did admit to fabricating a story that led to a now 2-year-long war, so.
  - NewsaHackO 1y ago
    Yes, but I think at least in this instance, OpenAI needs people to think that what they ask ChatGPT is private. They will have no business model if everyone thought that whatever private question they ask could fall into the hands of a media company and be used for anything. Also, at least when I signed up, you had to provide either a highly trusted email address or phone number to sign up, so your identity is definitely attached to whatever question you ask ChatGPT. They know how high the stakes are for them in this suit.
  - rockskon 1y ago
    Which story is this?
    - ferngreen 1y ago
      The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé https://share.google/2HB4zPEGi7x3JTYyj https://share.google/2HB4zPEGi7x3JTYyj
    - ferngreen 1y ago
      And their followups https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-podcast-camera/ https://theintercept.com/2024/01/28/new-york-times-daily-pod... https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-violence-kibbutz-beeri/ https://theintercept.com/2024/03/04/nyt-october-7-sexual-vio...
  - xpe 1y ago
    > Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. Both -1 and -1,000,000 are negative numbers. We need to be careful and mindful of our framing. Saying "X is bad" is a drastic oversimplification and not necessarily useful. Pointing at any one company and saying "bad" doesn't move the needle much in terms of figuring out how to steer us towards better outcomes. For that, we have to identify incentives and understand motivations.
- latexr 1y ago
  > To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. Lavabit opted to stop operating rather than give the FBI access to client emails. https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/us/snowdens-e-mail-provider-discusses-pressure-from-fbi-to-disclose-data.html https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
code_for_monkey 1y ago
You got downvoted for this? That many people are doing 'Leave Sam Altman alone!'? kinda wild
- johnwheeler 1y ago
  It's weird. It went up and down and up and down. Controversial POV. But thanks for the support. Sam Altman's just too dishonest. It's been said time and time again by so many people, by Paul Graham, Ilya Sutskeve, everybody's telling everybody he's dishonest. When are we going to wake up and get this guy out of there?

scotty79 1y ago

[flagged]

bitpush 1y ago
> They should sell their stuff by mail if they hate open culture so much. Does open culture mean free? Are you willing to work for free? It is perfectly OK to sell goods in exchange for money, which is what NYT is doing. I dont know why you're so upset with it. You cant walk into Apple Store and except to walk away with a free iPhone. Then why are you expecting to "walk" into nytimes' website and walk away with free article?
- scotty79 1y ago
  Open means open. Plenty of people make money in the open culture in way less obnoxious ways than NYT. What NYT does is crapping at the place where I am, but building a wall and charging for passage to a place that does stink little bit less. I don't mind them having such place, or even charging for access. What I mind is making mine actively worse. Do whatever you want and charge however much you want. But for the love of God don't advertise in my face using free space that I inhabit. My attention costs way more than your content. Don't be surprised that when you do I will disregard completely your wishful thinking about payment. What I need is one checkbox in Google ecosystem (and/or my browser) that says "Never show links to paywalled content". Give me that and all my beef with NYT and similar garbage factories is gone in a blink of an eye.
  - cestith 1y ago
    That sounds like a feature request to Google, not an indictment of the NYT.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      Same way that a feature request to the police is not an indictment of the criminals.
- pembrook 1y ago

terminalshort 1y ago

They infringed nothing. Two judges have already ruled that training on copyrighted data is fair use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr...

JCM9 1y ago
The issue is, in part, a concern that ChatGPT responses are often just simple derivations of the original content in ways that wouldn’t be considered fair use.
NewJazz 1y ago
But displaying regurgitations of very similar content may not be fair use. Fair use is a very delicate affair. One factor is whether the modified work poses as a market replacement for the original work.
zeofig 1y ago
Two idiot judges.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  Agreed
OhioMan2943 1y ago
[flagged]
freejazz 1y ago
Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.

protocolture 1y ago

People pretending to own Data that should belong to the commons is the larger issue.