• Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Established copyright doctrine will dictate that the Times cannot prevent AI models from acquiring knowledge about facts, any more than another news organization can prevent the Times itself from re-reporting stories it had no role in investigating,” OpenAI writes.

    Oh boy, their defense is that their advanced predictive text can acquire knowledge? Please, proceed.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      It would be a plausible defense if the AI model wasn’t regurgitating Times articles verbatim.

      • Bye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        7 months ago

        It still is defensible. I can quote a whole bunch of lines from “talladega nights” and “old school” verbatim. I can sing the entirety of “Amish paradise”, with close to 100% accuracy.

        My recall ability does not mean that I’ve violated copyright.

        • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          This doesn’t matter. You personally reciting movie quotes as a private individual is fair use. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has a commercial purpose, and you could say it does compete with The NY Times.

          • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            you could say it does compete with The NY Times

            Only indirectly - as in airplanes competing with cars. And the law generally encourages that type of competition as it leads to substantial innovation and economic growth.

            • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s like saying amazon and mom and pop gift shops don’t compete. Like yeah, a lot of people will still prefer the atmosphere and curation of the mom and pop shop but that doesn’t fucking matter when the vast majority of people just use Amazon, driving the shop out of business. This despite the fact that Amazon is more general and only competes indirectly.

        • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, but you’re not trying to sell your abilities to write things. The entire point of OpenAI as a company is to sell its LLM.

          • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Why would that matter?

            I could totally start a website, maybe call it “New York Stories”, read every single NYT article and then (working off my own memory, not copy/pasting the text) write the same story again and publish it. That would not be copyright infringement. In fact the NYT themselves do it all the time, publishing things that were originally reported elsewhere.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Do you have paying customers that ask you for movie scripts and song lyrics like OpenAi does? If so, the above would be flat out copyright infringement.

    • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a classic question with a touch of irony, isn’t it? The phrase “What’s so civil about war anyway?” is often used to point out the oxymoron in the term “civil war.” The term “civil” implies politeness and order, which is in stark contrast to the chaos and destruction characteristic of war. This line, made famous by the Guns N’ Roses song “Civil War,” captures the absurdity and tragedy of war, especially when it occurs within the same country among its citizens. It’s a rhetorical question that highlights the inherent contradiction in waging war in the name of civility or resolving internal disputes. So, in essence, there’s nothing “civil” about war—it’s a critique wrapped in a bit of wordplay.

        • Lath@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes.

          Civil war refers to a war between two or more ideologies or groups belonging to the same country. The only civil thing about it is the lack of WMDs and even that isn’t a certainty.