zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
What are they arguing here? AFAIK reading copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. Copying and selling them is, as the name would suggest, but OpenAI absolutely did not do that. Are they trying to say that LLM training is a special type of reading that should be considered infringement? Seems like a weak case to me.

edit: Would be very funny if OpenAI used an educational fair use defense

>>fallin+E2
>AFAIK reading copyrighted works

I hope you don’t think that’s all whats happening, right?

>LLM training is a special type of reading that should be considered infringement

OK, what turn of phrase would you prefer?

>>NN88+Z2
Of course, OpenAI doesn't just read. But do they simply reproduce content verbatim? And when they do not reproduce contents of the NYT verbatim, but rather process and tailor them to the situation, mixed, 'charged' with new 'information content' and adjusted to the purpose of the inquirer, it will not be easy for the New York Times.

Because ultimately, our entire knowledge is based on the knowledge of others and is remixed, 'charged' and changed by us after reading. I also think that the New York Times uses the contents of others to create new content.