zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
Even if they win against openAI, how would this prevent something like a Chinese or Russian LLM from “stealing” their content and making their own superior LLM that isnt weakened by regulation like the ones in the United States.

And I say this as someone that is extremely bothered by how easily mass amounts of open content can just be vacuumed up into a training set with reckless abandon and there isn’t much you can do other than put everything you create behind some kind of authentication wall but even then it’s only a matter of time until it leaks anyway.

Pandora’s box is really open, we need to figure out how to live in a world with these systems because it’s an un winnable arms race where only bad actors will benefit from everyone else being neutered by regulation. Especially with the massive pace of open source innovation in this space.

We’re in a “mutually assured destruction” situation now, but instead of bombs the weapon is information.

>>dissid+B6
I don't think they're looking to prevent the inevitable, but rather see a target with a fat wallet from which a lot of money can be extracted. I'm not saying this in a negative way, but much of the "this is outrageous!" reaction to AI hasn't been about the building of models, but rather the realization that a few players are arguably getting very rich on those models so other people want their piece of the action.

>>llm_ne+97
If NYT wins this, then there is going to be a massive push for payouts from basically everyone ever…I don’t see that wallet being fat for long.

>>dissid+S8
If LLMs actually create added value and don't just burn VC money then they should be able to pay a fair price for the work of people they're relying upon.

If your business is profitable only when you get your raw materials for free it's not a very good business.

>>alexey+ub
By that logic you should have to pay the copyright holder of every library book you ever read, because you could later produce some content you memorised verbatim.

>>logicc+Ub
What do you actually believe, with that statement? Do you believe Libraries are operating illegally? That they aren't paying rightsholders?

Also: GPT is not a legal entity in the united states. Humans have different rights than computer software. You are legally allowed to borrow books from the library. You are legally allowed to recite the content you read. You're not allowed to sell verbatim recitation of what you read. This is, obvious, I think? But its exactly what LLMs are doing right now.

>>015a+Iy
> Humans have different rights than computer software

Fortunately, the computer isn't the one being sued.

Instead it is the humans who use the computer. And those humans maintain their existing rights, even if they use a computer.

>>stale2+gR
Maybe (though there exist plenty of examples to the contrary). However, the NYT isn't suing you, ChatGPT user; they're suing OpenAI.

>>015a+792
Gotcha.

OpenAI is run by humans as well though.

So the same argument applies.

Those humans have fair use rights as well.