zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.)

I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.

>>kbos87+Na
Doesn't this harm open source ML by adding yet another costly barrier to training models?

>>hacker+1k
It doesn't matter what's good for open source ML.

It matters what is legal and what makes sense.

>>onlyre+zl
It doesn't matter what is legal. It matters what is right. Society is about balancing the needs of the individual vs the collective. I have a hard time equating individual rights with the NYT and I know my general views on scraping public data and who I was rooting for in the LinkedIn case.

>>soulof+dp
When we're discussing litigation, it certainly matters what is legal.

>>jeremy+N31
And also - if what is legal isn't right, we live in a democracy and should change that.

Saying what's legal is irrelevant is an odd take.

I like living in a place with a rule of law.

>>onlyre+md2
Should Harriet Tubman have petitioned her local city council and waited for a referendum before freeing slaves?