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
If the future of humanity rests on access to old NYT articles, we’re fucked. Why can’t OpenAI try to get a license if the NYT archives are so important to them?

>>peyton+Zn
They're not. They can skip the entirety of the NYT archives and not much of value will be lost. The issue is with every copycat lawsuit that sues every AI company out of existence. It's a chilling effect on AI development. Old entrenched companies trying to prohibit new ways of learning and sharing information for the sake of their profit.

>>solard+pq
Why don’t they train their AI on non-copyrighted material? It’s only fair for the copyright owners to want a share of the pie. I’d want one as well for my work.

>>lacrim+Tu
>It’s only fair for the copyright owners to want a share of the pie.

No it's not, it's pure greed. Everyone'd think it absurd if copyright holders dared to demand that any human who reads their publicly available text has to pay them a fee, but just because OpenAI are training a brain made of silicon instead of a brain made of carbon all the rent-seekers come out to try to take advantage.

>>logicc+WV
You know the NYT has to fork out money to build the content right ?

>>bamboo+5t1
Do you really think they're losing subscribers to ChatGPT...? Is there a single real person that thinks, "Oh, I don't need to pay the NYT anymore, I can just wait for the next OpenAI update six months from now and it'll summarize all the news for me"?