zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
I hope this results in Fair Use being expanded to cover AI training. This is way more important to humanity's future than any single media outlet. If the NYT goes under, a dozen similar outlets can replace them overnight. If we lose AI to stupid IP battles in its infancy, we end up handicapping probably the single most important development in human history just to protect some ancient newspaper. Then another country is going to do it anyway, and still the NYT is going to get eaten.

>>solard+Aj
Why shouldn't the creators of the training content get anything for their efforts? With some guiderails in place to establish what is fair compensation, Fair Use can remain as-is.

>>strong+Ul
> Why shouldn't the creators of the training content get anything for their efforts?

Well, they didn't charge for it, right? They're retroactively asking for money, but they could have just locked their content behind a strict paywall or had a specific licensing agreement enforceable ahead of time. They could do that going forward, but how is it fair for them to go back and say that?

And the issue isn't "You didn't pay us" it's "This infringes our copyright", which historically the answer has been "no it doesn't".