Technology

37719 readers

314 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

254

OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by sculd@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Apparently, stealing other people's work to create product for money is now "fair use" as according to OpenAI because they are "innovating" (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

"Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression—including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents—it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit "misconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bedrooms@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, regarding text online, most is there fir the visitors to read fir free. So, if we end up treating these AI training like human reading text one could argue they don't have to pay.

Reddit doesn't pay their users, anyway.

But personally, philosophically, I don’t see how Microsoft taking NYT articles and turning them into a paid product is any different than Microsoft taking an open source projects that doesn’t allow commercial use and sneaking it into a project.

Agreed. That said, NYT actually intentionally allows Google and Bing servers to parse their news articles in order to put their articles top in the search results. In that regard they might like certain form of processing by LLMs.

[–] krellor@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago

I thought about the indexing situation in contrast to the user paywall. Without thinking too much about any legal argument, it would seem that NYT having a paywall for visitors is them enforcing their right to the content signaling that it isn't free for all use, while them allowing search indexers access is allowing the content to visible but not free on the market.

It reminds me of the Canadian claim that Google should pay Canadian publishers for the right to index, which I tend to disagree with. I don't think Google or Bing should owe NYT money for indexing, but I don't think allowing indexing confers the right for commercial use beyond indexing. I highly suspect OpenAI spoofed search indexers while crawling content specifically to bypass paywall and the like.

I think part of what the courts will have to weigh for the fair use arguments is the extent to which NYT it's harmed by the use, the extent to which the content is transformed, and the public interest between the two.

I find it interesting that OpenAI or Microsoft already pay AP for use of their content because it is used to ensure accurate answers are given to users. I struggle to see how the situation is different with NYT in OpenAI opinion, other than perhaps on price.

It will be interesting to see what shakes out in the courts. I'm also interested in the proposed EU rules which recognize fair use for research and education, but less so for commercial use.

Thanks for the reply! Have a great day!