[HN Gopher] OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
Author : jonbaer
Score : 361 points
Date : 2025-03-13 12:20 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (finance.yahoo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (finance.yahoo.com)
| freedomben wrote:
| Related (adjacent content from the same report):
|
| _OpenAI urges Trump administration to remove guardrails for the
| industry (cnbc.com)_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43354324
| freedomben wrote:
| Apparently the above has been marked as a dupe (I hope not from
| a misunderstanding of what "adjacent" means), but ftr it covers
| different stuff. e.g. there's nothing about the classified data
| model proposal in TFA
| pvg wrote:
| Slightly different coverage of the same event usually count
| as dupes on HN. You could link the reporting you want to
| emphasize/discuss, the HN submission itself is not that
| important.
| dsr_ wrote:
| You see, American AI is going to take over the world. It's just
| that it's temporarily short of funds. I mean, GPUs. Uh, there are
| pesky laws in the way.
|
| Totally not the fault of a gigantic overcommitment based on
| wishing, no.
| gkoberger wrote:
| I hate this game. I hate that Sam Altman publicly supported Trump
| (both financially and by showing up). Maybe I hate that he "had"
| to do this for the sake of his company, or maybe I hate that he
| _didn't_ have to do it and is a hypocrite. Maybe I just hate how
| easily laws can be shaped by $1M and a few nice words. Either
| way, I hate that it worked.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| centralising power never works well for the good of society
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| That's correct. Voluntary association advocated by anarchy is
| the only truly free social model.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I heard rumblings about some sort of system where power is
| shared equally across three branches of government with
| checks and balances to ensure one branch doesn't go rogue
| and just do whatever they want.
|
| Forget what they called it, united something or other.
| int_19h wrote:
| Well, the people who designed that system were very
| skeptical of political parties in general, and thought
| they could be avoided. Turns out that this isn't true,
| and once you have parties, they can in fact capture all
| three branches of government, and then those "checks and
| balances" kinda stop working.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| Yeah, I think that is unfortunately the fate of all
| political systems.
|
| Maybe our AI overlords will do a better job this time if
| they are unconstrained from any lawful oversight. I mean,
| one can hope...
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| In fact, that's not too far away from our current
| trajectory. Algorithmically enforced sovereign oversight
| is part of the patchwork state and Yarvinism
| specifically.
| slt2021 wrote:
| whatever you had in mind, thats definitely not the USA,
| where money/lobbying and inter-partisan corruption trump
| everything
| danans wrote:
| It's not true that it never works.
|
| Centralizing production goals, decision making, and
| expenditure at the Federal government is what made the
| industrial response to WW2 successful. Centralizing tax
| revenue to fund retirements for the elderly (Social Security)
| resulted in the poverty rate of seniors being brought far
| lower. Centralizing zoning control at the state of California
| is _finally_ starting to make localities take responsibility
| for building more housing. These were/are centralizing
| efforts with the intent of helping the masses over the
| wealthy few.
|
| What doesn't work is centralizing power with the intent of
| concentrating wealth and security by taking wealth, labor,
| and security from working people, AKA extractive
| institutions.
|
| That's true whether it's the donor-class funded political
| establishment or regimes like the current US kleptocracy
| doing it.
| int_19h wrote:
| Problem is, once you centralize, that remains in place for
| a long time, but the original intent, even if it was
| genuine, rarely outlives the people who implemented it for
| long.
|
| Generally speaking, every point of centralization is also a
| point where a lot of power can be acquired with relatively
| little resources. So regardless of intent, it attracts
| people who are into power, and over time, they take over.
| The original intent often remains symbolically and in the
| rhetoric used, but when you look beyond that into the
| actual policies, they are increasingly divorced from what
| is actually claimed.
| danans wrote:
| > Generally speaking, every point of centralization is
| also a point where a lot of power can be acquired with
| relatively little resources
|
| This is why (1) shared principles and (2) credible
| democracy is important, to allow evolution of the
| centralized power (i.e. government) towards the shared
| principles, and why its corporate-bribed facsimile or
| oligarchic authoritarianism don't work.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| > I hate this game.
|
| This is tech. This is how it has always been. From Archemedes
| to DaVinci to Edison to Ford, technologists are always captured
| to serve the interests of those in power. Most modern
| technologists don't want to believe this. They grew up building
| an Internet that had a bit of countercultural flair to it and
| undermined a few subsets of entrenched elites (mass media, taxi
| cartels, etc.), so they convinced themselves that they could
| control society under their wise hands. Except the same thing
| that always happened happened: the powers that be are now
| treating tech the way tech treats everyone else.
| nwhnwh wrote:
| Could you please recommend a book about this?
| corndoge wrote:
| _A Canticle for Leibowitz_
| mystraline wrote:
| Wealth of Nations (read past pg 50, unlike most current
| economists)
|
| Das kapital, as a critique to Smith's writing.
|
| Communist manifesto, to understand the point of the
| laborer, and not capital.
|
| Read about worker cooperatives and democracy in the
| workplace, including Mondragon corp in Spain.
|
| (One of the largest problems we have with any economic
| system is that none can properly model infinites. The cost
| of creating new is expensive be it art or science. But cost
| of copying is effectively 0. I can highlight the problem,
| but I have no good solution. But OpenAI's response is 'let
| us ignore copyright law' which wrongs creators.)
| wildpeaks wrote:
| It made sense to ponder given HN attracts people with the
| hacker mindset (the drive of curiosity to understand how
| things work and how to improve them, not merely accepting the
| status quo as gospel like the dry monkeys) and frustration is
| a good signal that something could be improved.
| scudsworth wrote:
| whats a dry monkey
| lmc wrote:
| Apple seem to be holding the line ok:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-investors-reject-
| pr...
|
| https://news.sky.com/story/apple-removes-end-to-end-
| security...
| dchichkov wrote:
| >> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs "a copyright
| strategy that promotes the freedom to learn" and on "preserving
| American AI models' ability to learn from copyrighted material."
|
| Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models,
| with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited
| in this way, while labs in China are not.
| sega_sai wrote:
| I like how this "freedom to learn" should apply to models, but
| not real people..
| TheSoftwareGuy wrote:
| It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you
| read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling
| copies of that book without permission of the copyright
| owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use
| that knowledge, just like a model could.
| m1el wrote:
| when it comes to real people, they get sued into oblivion
| for downloading copyrighted content, even for the purpose
| of learning. but when facebook & openai do it, at a much
| larger scale, suddenly the laws must be changed.
| ryoshu wrote:
| Case in point -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Swartz wasn't "downloading copyrighted content...for the
| purpose of learning," he was downloading with the intent
| to distribute. That doesn't justify how he was treated.
| But it's not analogous to the limited argument for LLMs
| that don't regurgitate the copyrighted content.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _when it comes to real people, they get sued into
| oblivion for downloading copyrighted content, even for
| the purpose of learning._
|
| Really? Or do they get sued for sharing as in
| republishing without transformation? Arguably a URL
| providing copyrighted content, is you offering a xerox
| machine.
|
| It seems most "sued into oblivion" are the reshare
| problem, not the get one for myself problem.
| conjectures wrote:
| It does apply to people? When you read a copy of a book,
| you can't be sued for making a copy of the book in the
| synapses of your brain.
|
| Now, if you have eidetic memory and write out large
| chunks of the book from memory and publish them, that's
| what you could be sued for.
| triceratops wrote:
| > When you read a copy of a book
|
| They're not talking about _reading_ a book FFS. You
| absolutely can be sued for illegally obtaining a copy of
| the book.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is not about memory or training. The LLM training
| process is not being run on books streamed directly off
| the internet or from real-time footage of a book.
|
| What these companies are doing is:
|
| 1. Obtain a free copy of a work in some way.
|
| 2. Store this copy in a format that's amenable to
| training.
|
| 3. Train their models on the stored copy, months or years
| after step 1 happened.
|
| The illegal part happens in steps 1 and/or 2. Step 3 is
| perhaps debatable - maybe it's fair to argue that the
| model is learning in the same sense as a human reading a
| book, so the model is perhaps not illegally created.
|
| But the training set that the company is storing is full
| of illegally obtained or at least illegally copied works.
|
| What they're doing _before_ the training step is exactly
| like building a library by going with a portable copier
| into bookshops and creating copies of every book in that
| bookshop.
| visarga wrote:
| But making copies for yourself, without distributing
| them, is different than making copies for others. Google
| is downloading copyrighted content from everywhere
| online, but they don't redistribute their scraped
| content.
|
| Even web browsing implies making copies of copyrighted
| pages, we can't tell the copyright status of a page
| without loading it, at which point a copy has been made
| in memory.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Making copies of an original you don't own/didn't obtain
| legally is not fair use. Also, this type of personal
| copying doesn't apply to corporations making copies to be
| distributed among their employees (it might apply to a
| company making a copy for archival, though).
| triceratops wrote:
| Can I download a book without paying for it, and print
| copies of it? Stash copies in my bathroom, the gym, my
| office, my bedroom etc. to basically have a copy on hand to
| study from whenever I have some free time?
|
| What about movies and music?
| ajross wrote:
| > Can I download a book without paying for it, and print
| copies of it?
|
| No, but you can _read_ a book, learn its contents, and
| then write and publish your own book to teach the
| information to others. The operation of an AI is rather
| closer to that than it is to copyright violation.
|
| "Should" there be protections against AI training? Maybe!
| But copyright law as it stands is woefully inadequate to
| the task, and IMHO a lot of people aren't really treating
| with this. We need a functioning government to write
| well-considered laws for the benefit of all here. We'll
| see what we get.
| triceratops wrote:
| But I can't legally obtain the book to read and learn
| from without me (or a library) paying for it. Let's start
| there first.
| ajross wrote:
| Yes, but the learning isn't constrained by those laws. If
| I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime of
| theft. You can put me in jail, try me before a jury, fine
| me, and put me in prison according to whatever laws I
| broke.
|
| Nothing in my sentence constrains my ability to teach
| someone else the stuff I learned, though! In fact, the
| first amendment makes it pretty damn clear that nothing
| _can_ constrain that freedom.
|
| Also, note that the example is malformed: in almost all
| these cases, Meta et. al. aren't "stealing" anything
| anyway. They're downloading and reading stuff on the
| internet that is available for free. If you or I can't be
| prosecuted for reading a preprint from arXiv.org or
| whatever, it's a very hard case to make that an AI can.
|
| Again, copyright isn't the tool here. We need better
| laws.
| triceratops wrote:
| > copyright isn't the tool here
|
| It's not the _only_ tool. I agree that "use for ML"
| should be an additional right.
|
| What people are pissed about is that copyright only ever
| serves to constrain the little guys.
|
| > If I steal a book and read it, I'm guilty of the crime
| of theft
|
| You or I would never dare to do this in the first place.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Sure, but OpenAI (same as Google, and Facebook, and all
| the others) is illegally copying the book, and they want
| this to be legal for them.
|
| It's perhaps arguable whether it's OK for an LLM to be
| trained on freely available but licensed works, such as
| the Linux source code. There you can get in arguments
| about learning vs machine processing, and whether the LLM
| is a derived work etc
|
| But it's _not_ arguable that copying a book that you have
| not even bought to store in your corporate data lake to
| later use for training is a _blatant_ violation of basic
| copyright. It 's exactly like borrowing a book from a
| library, photocopying it, and then putting it in your
| employee-only corporate library.
| riversflow wrote:
| > Meta et. al. aren't "stealing" anything anyway
|
| They were caught downloading the entirety of libgen.
| zombiwoof wrote:
| If you buy it
| ajross wrote:
| No, even if I steal it. I can teach you anything I know.
| Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
| speech, as it were.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Yes, but this is not the right model. What OpenAI wants
| is to borrow a book, make a copy of it, and keep using
| that copy, in training their models. This is fully and
| simply illegal, under any basic copyright law.
| Terretta wrote:
| Is the book online and accessible to your eyeballs
| through your open standards client tool, such that you
| can learn from seeing it?
| triceratops wrote:
| Most books aren't. Unless you pay for them.
| notatoad wrote:
| >Can I download a book without paying for it
|
| if you have evidence that openAI is doing this with books
| that are not freely available, i'm sure the publishers
| would absolutely love to hear about it.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| We know Meta has done it. These companies have torrented
| or downloaded books that they did not pay for. Things
| like the The Pile, libgen, anna's library were scraped to
| build these models.
| lawlessone wrote:
| >if you have evidence that openAI is doing this with
| books that are not freely available, i'm sure the
| publishers would absolutely love to hear about it.
|
| Lol, so why are OpenAI challenging these laws?
| croes wrote:
| Do you think OpenAI used fewer sources than Meta?
| ben_w wrote:
| To the extent that this is how libraries function, yes.
|
| The part of that which doesn't apply is "print copies",
| at least not complete copies, but libraries often have
| photocopiers in them for fragments needed for research.
|
| AI models shouldn't do that either, IMO. But unlimited
| complete copies is the mistake the Internet Archive made,
| too.
| triceratops wrote:
| I missed the part where OpenAI got library cards for all
| the libraries in the world.
|
| Is having a library card a requirement for being hired
| over there?
| ben_w wrote:
| I don't need a card to read in the library, nor to use
| the photocopiers there, but it's merely one example
| anyway. (If it wasn't, you'd only need one library, any
| of the deposit libraries will do:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit).
|
| You also don't need permission, as a human, to read (and
| learn from) the internet in general. Machines _by
| standard practice_ require such permission, hence
| robots.txt, and OpenAI 's GPTBot complies with the
| robots.txt file and the company gives advice to web
| operators about how to disallow their bot.
|
| How AI should be treated, more like a search index, or
| more like a mind that can learn by reading? Not my call.
| It's a new thing, and laws can be driven by economics or
| by moral outrage, and in this case those two driving
| forces are at odds.
| triceratops wrote:
| We started with libraries and books, now you're moving
| the goalposts to websites.
|
| Sidenote: I wouldn't even be mad if OpenAI built robots
| to go into all of the libraries and read all of the
| books. That would be amazing!
| ben_w wrote:
| I started with libraries. OpenAI started with the
| internet.
|
| The argument for both is identical, your objection is
| specific to libraries.
|
| IIRC, Google already did your sidenote. Or started to,
| may have had legal issues.
| triceratops wrote:
| > The argument for both is identical
|
| How so? I don't have to pay to read most websites. To
| read most books I have to pay (or a library has to pay
| and I have to wait to get the book).
|
| > IIRC, Google already did your sidenote
|
| Not quite. They had to chop the spines off books and have
| humans feed them into scanners. I'm talking about a robot
| that can walk (or roll) into a library, use arms to take
| books off the shelves, turn the pages and read them
| without putting them into a scanner.
| philipkglass wrote:
| They had humans turn the pages of intact books in
| scanning machines. The books mostly came from the shelves
| of academic libraries and were returned to the shelves
| after scanning. You can see some incidental captures of
| hands/fingers in the scans on Google Books or HathiTrust
| (the academic home of the Google Books scans). There are
| some examples collected here:
|
| https://theartofgooglebooks.tumblr.com/
| ben_w wrote:
| > How so? I don't have to pay to read most websites. To
| read most books I have to pay (or a library has to pay
| and I have to wait to get the book).
|
| "or" does a lot of work, even ignoring that I'd already
| linked you to a page about deposit libraries:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit
|
| Fact is, you _can_ read books for free, just as you can
| read (many but not all) websites for free. And in both
| cases you 're allowed to use what you learned without
| paying ongoing licensing fees for having learned anything
| from either, and even to make money from what you learn.
|
| > Not quite. They had to chop the spines off books and
| have humans feed them into scanners.
|
| Your statement is over 20 years out of date:
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US7508978B1/en
| dylan604 wrote:
| I missed the part where we throw away rational logic
| skills
|
| Have you never been to a public library and read a book
| while sitting there without checking it out? Clearly, age
| is a factor here, and us olds are confused by this lack
| of understanding of how libraries function. I did my
| entire term paper without ever checking out books from
| the library. I just showed up with my stack of blank
| index cards, then left with the necessary info written on
| them. Did an entire project on tracking stocks by
| visiting the library and viewing all of the papers for
| the days in one sitting rather than being schmuck and
| tracking it daily. Took me about an hour in one day. No
| library card required.
|
| Also, a library card is ridiculously cheap even if you
| did decide to have one.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| If I spent every last second of my life in a public
| library, I couldn't even view a fraction of the
| information that OpenAI has ingested. The comparison is
| irrelevant. To make the comparison somehow valid, I'd
| have to back up my truck to a public library, steal the
| entire contents, then start selling copies out of my
| garage
| dylan604 wrote:
| Look, even I'm not a fan of ClosedAI, but this is
| ridiculous. ClosedAI isn't giving copies of anything. It
| is giving you a response it infers based on things it has
| "read" and/or "learned" by reading content. Does ClosedAI
| store a copy of the content it scrapes, or does it
| immediately start tokenizing it or whatever is involved
| in training? If they store it, that's a lot of data, and
| we should be able to prove that sites were scraped
| through lawsuit discovery process. Are you then also
| suggesting that ClosedAI will sell you copies of that raw
| data if you prompted correctly?
|
| I'm in no way justifying anything about GPT/LLM training.
| I'm just calling out that these comparisons are extremely
| strained.
| triceratops wrote:
| > Have you never been to a public library and read a book
| while sitting there without checking it out?
|
| See my comment here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355723. If OpenAI
| built a robot that physically went into libraries, pulled
| books off shelves by itself, and read them...that's so
| cool I wouldn't even be mad.
| dylan604 wrote:
| What about checking out eBooks? If you had an app that
| checked those out and scanned it at robot speed vs human
| feed, that would be the same thing. The idea that reading
| something that does not belong to you directly means
| stealing is just weird and very strained.
|
| theGoogs essentially did that by having the robot that
| turned each page and scanned the pages. that's no
| different than having the librarian pull material for you
| so that you don't have to pull the book from the shelf
| yourself.
|
| There's better arguments to make on why ClosedAI is bad.
| Reading text it doesn't own isn't one of them. How they
| acquired the text would be a better thing to critique.
| There's laws for that in place now that does not require
| new laws to be enacted.
| triceratops wrote:
| > If you had an app that checked those out and scanned it
|
| You mean...made a copy? Do you really not see the
| problem?
|
| > How they acquired the text would be a better thing to
| critique
|
| Well...yeah that's what I said in the comment that
| started this discussion branch:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43355147
|
| This isn't about humans or robots _reading_ books. It 's
| that robots are allowed to violate copyright law to read
| the books, and us humans are not.
| nightpool wrote:
| Yes, you're allowed to make personal copies of copyright
| works that you own. IANAL, but my understanding is that
| if you're using them for yourself, and you're not
| prevented from doing so by some sort of EULA or DRM,
| there's nothing in copyright law preventing you from e.g.
| photocopying a book and keeping a copy at home, as long
| as you don't distribute it. The test case here has always
| been CDs--you're allowed to make copies of CDs you
| legally own and keep one at home and one in your car.
| triceratops wrote:
| CDs, software, and electronic media, yes. Physical books,
| no. You can't make archival copies.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| sure you can, you could take a physical book, and
| painstakingly copy each page at a time, that is totally
| fair use.
| triceratops wrote:
| Citation needed.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| You can make copies of things. You just can't distribute
| them
| triceratops wrote:
| You're repeating upthread comments. And no, you can't.
| There's an archival exception for _electronic media_. If
| you want to make copies of physical media you either:
|
| 1. Can't
|
| Or
|
| 2. Rely on fair use to protect you (archival by
| individuals isn't necessarily fair use)
| jncfhnb wrote:
| It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your
| personal archives.
|
| The fair use criteria considers whether it is commercial
| in nature (in this case it is not) and the " the effect
| of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
| copyrighted work" for which a personal copy of a
| personally owned book is non existent.
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
|
| You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to
| prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they
| bought just to keep.
| triceratops wrote:
| > It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your
| personal archives.
|
| There's no legal precedent for this. See
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042
|
| > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
| value of the copyrighted work
|
| A copyright holder's lawyer would argue that having and
| using a photocopy of a book keeps the original from
| wearing out. This directly affects the potential market
| for the work, since the owner could resell the book in
| mint condition, after reading and burning their
| photocopies.
|
| > You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to
| prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they
| bought just to keep.
|
| I mean maybe this is true. But the affected individual
| will have a very bad year and spend a ton of money on
| lawyers.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| >No legal precedent
|
| Why do you interpret this to mean "absolutely can't do
| this"? "No precedent" seems to equally support both sides
| of the argument (that is, it provides no evidence; courts
| have not ruled). The other commenters arguments on the
| actual text of the statute seem more convincing to me
| than what you have so far provided.
| triceratops wrote:
| I was responding to
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 which said
| it "absolutely is fair use".
|
| > The other commenters arguments...seem more convincing
|
| Because you (and I) want it to be fair use. But as I
| already said in my comment, it potentially fails one leg
| of fair use. Keeping your purchased physical copy of the
| book pristine and untouched while you read the photocopy
| allows you to later, after destroying the copies you
| made, resell the book as new or like-new. This directly
| affects the market for that book.
|
| Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out
| if it's really fair use? That's what "no precedent"
| means.
| observationist wrote:
| It seems reasonably within the bounds described by fair
| use, but nobody's ever tested that particular
| constellation of factors in a lawsuit, so there's no
| precedent - hand copying a book, that is.
|
| 17 U.S.C. SS 107 is the fair use carveout.
|
| Interestingly, digitizing and copying a book on your own,
| for your own private use, has also not been brought to
| court. Major rights holders seem to not want this
| particular fair use precedent to be established, which it
| likely would be, and might then invalidate crucial
| standing for other cases in which certain interpretations
| of fair use are preferred.
|
| Digitally copying media you own is fair use. I'll die on
| that hill. It doesn't grant commercial rights, you can't
| resell a copy as if it were the original, and so on, and
| so forth.
|
| There's even a good case to be made that sharing a
| digitally copied work purchased legally, even to millions
| of people, 5 years after a book is first sold - for a
| vast majority of books, after 5 years, they've sold about
| 99.99% of the copies they're going to sell.
|
| By sharing after the ~5 year mark, you're arguably doing
| marketing for the book, and if we cultivated a culture of
| direct donation to authors and content creators, it
| invalidates any of the reasons piracy is made illegal in
| the first place.
|
| Right now publishers, studios, and platforms have a
| stranglehold on content markets, and the law serves them
| almost exclusively. It is exceedingly rare for the law to
| be invoked in defending or supporting an author or artist
| directly. It's very common for groups of wealthy lawyers
| LARPing as protectors of authors and artists to exploit
| the law and steal money from regular people.
|
| Exclusively digital content should have a 3 year
| protected period, while physical works should get 5,
| whether it's text, audio, image, or video.
|
| Once something is outside the protected period, it should
| be considered fair game for sharing until 20 years have
| passed, at which point it should enter public domain.
|
| Copyright law serves two purposes - protecting and
| incentivizing content creators, and serving the interests
| of the public. Situations where a bunch of lawyers get
| rich by suing the pants off of regular people over
| technicalities is a despicable outcome.
| triceratops wrote:
| > there's no precedent - hand copying a book, that is
|
| Thank you! I had looked this up myself last week, so I
| knew this. I had long believed, as GP does, that copying
| anything you own without distribution is either allowed
| or fair use. I wanted GP to learn as I did.
| observationist wrote:
| For reference, here's the US legal code in question:
|
| Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
| the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
| reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
| means specified by that section, for purposes such as
| criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
| multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
| research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
| determining whether the use made of a work in any
| particular case is a fair use the factors to be
| considered shall include-- (1) the purpose and character
| of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial
| nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the
| nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and
| substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
| copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the
| use upon the potential market for or value of the
| copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished
| shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such
| finding is made upon consideration of all the above
| factors.
|
| The spirit seems apparent, but in practice it's been used
| by awful people to destroy lives and exploit rent from
| artists and authors in damn near tyrannical ways.
| paulddraper wrote:
| I take the contrary view.
|
| What part of fair use pertains to making a physical copy
| of the complete work?
| mjmas wrote:
| This is a specific exception in Australia Copyright law.
| It allows reproducing works in books, newspapers and
| periodical publications in different form for private and
| domestic use.
|
| (Copyright Act 1968 Part III div. 1, section 43C)
| https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1968A00063/latest/text
| paulddraper wrote:
| Leaving aside the broader discussion...
|
| You cannot legally photocopy copy an entire book even if
| you own a physical copy.
|
| Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal
| argument or case law to support that.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I believe the post you are replying to is suggesting the
| copy is made by hand, one word at a time.
| croes wrote:
| You may copy, but you may not circumvent the copy
| protection.
| triceratops wrote:
| Correct. For electronic media.
| croes wrote:
| > Yes, you're allowed to make personal copies of
| copyright works that you own.
|
| That's not the point. It's about books you don't own. Are
| you allowed to download books from Z-Library, Sci-Hub
| etc. because you want to learn?
| falcor84 wrote:
| To the best of my knowledge, no individual has ever been
| sued or prosecuted specifically for downloading books. As
| long as you're not massively sharing them with others,
| it's not an issue in practice. Enjoy your reading and
| learning.
| jlev wrote:
| Aaron Swartz, cofounder of Reddit and inventor of RSS and
| Markdown, was hounded to death by an overzealous
| prosecutor for downloading articles from JSTOR, with the
| intent to learn from them. He was charged with over a
| million dollars in fines and could have faced 35 years in
| prison.
|
| He and Sam Altman were in the same YC class. OpenAI is
| doing the same thing at a larger scale, and their
| technology actually reproduces and distributes
| copyrighted material. It's shameful that they are making
| claims that they aren't infringing creator's rights when
| they have scraped the entire internet.
|
| https://flaminghydra.com/sam-altman-and-aaron-swartz-saw-
| the... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
| kgdiem wrote:
| Will what OpenAI & others serve as precedent for
| Alexandra Elbakyan of SciHub and avenge Aaron?
|
| Cynically, I imagine it will not but I hope that it
| could.
| concerndc1tizen wrote:
| You could argue that they are avenging him in doing
| exactly what he did, or worse, and not being punished for
| it. They are establishing precedent.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| It was overzealous prosecution of the breaking into a
| closet to wire up some ethernet cables to gain access to
| the materials
|
| Not the downloading with intent
|
| And apparently the most controversial take on this
| community is the observation that many people would have
| done the trial, plea and time, regardless of how
| overzealous the prosecution was
| triceratops wrote:
| > breaking into a closet
|
| "The closet's door was kept unlocked, according to press
| reports"
|
| When's the last time a kid with no record, a research
| fellow at Harvard, got threatened with 35 years for a
| simple B&E?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm responding specifically to this sentence:
|
| > It's shameful that they are making claims that they
| aren't infringing creator's rights when they have scraped
| the entire internet.
|
| Scraping the Internet is generally very different from
| piracy. You are given a limited right to that data when
| you access it, and you can make local copies. if further
| use does something sufficiently non-copying, then creator
| rights aren't being infringed.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Can you compress the internet including copyrighted
| material and then sell access to it?
|
| At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes
| infringement?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Can you compress the internet including copyrighted
| material and then sell access to it?
|
| Define access?
|
| If you mean sending out the compressed copy, generally
| no. For things people normally call compression.
|
| If you want to run a search engine, then you should be
| fine.
|
| > At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes
| infringement?
|
| It would have to be very very lossy.
|
| But some AI stuff is. For example there are image models
| with fewer parameters than source images. Those are, by
| and large, not able to store enough data to infringe
| with. (Copying can creep in with images that have
| multiple versions, but that's a small sliver of the
| data.)
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| When you identify where the infringing party has stored
| the source material in their
| artifact.{zip,pdf,safetensor,connectome,etc}. In ML, this
| discovery stage is called "mechanistic interpretability",
| and in humans it's called "illegal."
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's not that clear cut. Since they're talking about
| taking lossy compression to the limit, there are ways to
| go so lossy that you're not longer infringing even if you
| can point exactly at where it's stored.
|
| Like cliff's notes.
| apetresc wrote:
| Wasn't John Gruber the inventor of Markdown?
| falcor84 wrote:
| I'm familiar with Aaron Swartz's case, and that is
| actually why I phrased it as "books". In any case, while
| tragic, Swartz wasn't prosecuted for copyright
| infringement, but rather for wire fraud and computer
| fraud due to the manner in which he bypassed protections
| in MIT's network and the JSTOR API. This wouldn't have
| been an issue if he downloaded the articles from a source
| that freely shared them, like sci-hub.
| tzs wrote:
| 35 years is a press release sentence. The way DOJ
| calculates sentences when they write press releases
| ignores the alleged facts of the particular case and just
| uses for each charge the theoretically maximum possible
| sentence that someone could get for that charge.
|
| To actually get that maximum typically requires things
| like the person is a repeat offender, drug dealing was
| involved, people were physically harmed, it involved
| organized crime, it involved terrorism, a large amount of
| money was involved, or other things that make it an
| unusual big and serious crime.
|
| The DOJ knows exactly what they are alleging the
| defendant did. They could easily looks at the various
| factors that affect sentencing for the charge and see
| which apply to that case and come up with a realistic
| number but that doesn't make it sound as impressive in
| the press release.
|
| Another thing that inflates the numbers in the press
| releases is that defendants are often charged with
| several related charges. For many crimes there are groups
| of related charges that for sentencing get merged. If you
| are charged with say 3 charges from the same group and
| convicted on all you are only sentenced for whichever one
| of them has the longest sentence.
|
| If you've got 3 charges from such a group in the press
| release the DOJ might just take the completely bogus
| maximum for each as described above and just add those 3
| together.
|
| Here's a good article on DOJ's ridiculous sentence
| numbers [1].
|
| Here's a couple of articles from an expert in this area
| of law that looks specifically at what Swartz was charged
| with and what kind of sentence he was actually looking at
| [2][3].
|
| Why do you think Swartz was downloading the articles to
| learn from them? As far as I've seen know one knows for
| sure what he was intending.
|
| If he wanted to learn from JSTOR articles he could have
| downloaded them using the JSTOR account he had through
| his research fellowship at Harvard. Why go to MIT and use
| their public JSTOR WiFi access, and then when that was
| cut off hide a computer in a wiring closet hooked into
| their ethernet?
|
| I've seen claims that he wanted to do was meta research
| about scientific publishing as a whole which could
| explain why he needed to download more than he could
| download with his normal JSTOR account from Harvard, but
| again why do that using MIT's public WiFi access? JSTOR
| has granted more direct access to large amounts of data
| for such research. Did he talk to them first to try to
| get access that way?
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230107080107/https://ww
| w.popeh...
|
| [2] https://volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
|
| [3] https://volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-
| against-a...
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| Wow, just wow.
| anjaliNYC wrote:
| Truly wow. The sucking up to coroporations is terrifying.
| This, when Aaron Swartz was institutionally murdered by
| the institutions and the state for "copyright
| infringement". And what he did wasn't even for profit, or
| even a 0.00001 of the scale of the theft that OpenAI and
| their ilk have done.
|
| So it's totally OK to rip off and steal and lie through
| your teeth AND do it all for money, if you're a company.
| But if you're a human being, doing it not for profit but
| for the betterment of your own fellow humans, you deserve
| to be imprisoned and systematically murdered and driven
| to suicide.
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| Thank you for putting my sentiment into words. THIS. It's
| not power to the people, it's power to the oligarchs.
| Once you have enough power and, more importantly, wealth,
| you're welcomed into the fold with open arms. Just how
| Spotify build a library of stolen music, as long as
| wealth was created, there is no problem because wealth is
| just money taken from the people and given to the ruling
| class.
| carlosdp wrote:
| That's not a one-to-one analogy. The LLM isn't giving you
| the book, its giving you information it learned from the
| book.
|
| The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and publish
| a blog post with all the information in that book, in my
| own words?", and under US copyright law, the answer is:
| Yes.
| triceratops wrote:
| > The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and
| publish a blog post with all the information in that
| book, in my own words?"
|
| The analogous scenario is actually "Can I read a book
| that I obtained illegally and face no consequences for
| obtaining it illegally?" The answer is "Yes" there are no
| consequences for reading said book, for individuals or
| machines.
|
| But individuals can face serious consequences for
| obtaining it illegally. And corporations are trying to
| argue those consequences shouldn't apply to them.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > But individuals can face serious consequences for
| obtaining it illegally.
|
| Can they? Who has ever faced serious consequences for
| pirating books in the US?
| triceratops wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
|
| (Please no pedantry about how scientific papers aren't
| books)
| drdaeman wrote:
| Not to diminish the atrocity of what happened to Aaron,
| but is this a highly abnormal case of prosecutor overzeal
| or is it common for people to be charged and held liable
| for downloading and/or consuming (without distribution)
| of copyrighted materials (in any form) without obtaining
| a license?
|
| Asking because I genuinely don't know. I believe all I've
| ever read about persecution of "commonplace" copyright
| violations was either about distributors or tied to
| bidirectional nature of peer-to-peer exchange (torrents
| typically upload to others even as you download =
| redistribution).
| nashashmi wrote:
| Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff. Did he publish
| the stuff too? That would be an infringement. But only
| downloading the stuff? And never distributing it? Not
| sure if it's worth a violation .
| mburns wrote:
| >Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff.
|
| A tiny fraction compared to the 80+ terabytes Facebook
| downloaded.
|
| >Did he publish the stuff too?
|
| No.
|
| > Not sure if it's worth a violation .
|
| Exactly.
| piva00 wrote:
| There's no analogous because the scale of it takes it to
| a whole different level and degree, and for all intents
| and purposes we tend to care about level and degree.
|
| Me taking over control of the lemonade market in my
| neighbourhood wouldn't ever be a problem to anyone, a
| very minor annoyance; instead if I managed to corner the
| lemonade market of a whole continent it'd be a very
| different thing.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > Can I download a book without paying for it
|
| Yes, you can read books without paying, if that's how it
| is offered.
|
| And you can photocopy books you own for your own personal
| use. But again....the analogy is remembering/leaning from
| a book.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| To support your point, lawsuits are already coming in for
| illegal copying of books:
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/20/24224450/anthropic-
| copyri...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-sued-by-
| top-...
| dylan604 wrote:
| owning a copy and learning the information is not the
| same. you can learn 2+2=4 from a book, but you no longer
| need that book to get that answer. each year in school, I
| was issued a book for class, learned from it, returned
| the book. I did not return the learning.
|
| musicians can read the sheet music and memorize how to
| play it, and no longer need the music. they still have
| the information.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| But you still need to buy the sheet music first, all the
| AI Labs used pirated materials to learn from.
|
| There's two angles to the lawsuits that are getting
| confused - the largest one from the book publishers
| (Sarah Silverman et al) attacked from the angle that the
| models could reproduce copyrighted information. This was
| pretty easily quelled / RHLF'd out (used to be that if
| ChatGPT started producing lyrics a supervisor/censor
| would just cut off it's response early - tried it now and
| ChatGPT.com is now more eloquent, "Sorry, I can't provide
| the full lyrics to "Strawberry Fields Forever" as they
| are copyrighted. However, I can summarize the song or
| discuss its themes, meaning, and history if you're
| interested!")
|
| But there's also the angle of "why does OpenAI have Sarah
| Silverman's book on their hard drive if they never paid
| her for it? This is the lawsuit against Meta regarding
| books3 and torrenting, seems like they're getting away
| with the "we never redistributed/seeded!" but it's
| unclear to me why this is a defense against copyright
| infringement.
| nunSpQyeJR wrote:
| Not only would the musician have to buy the sheet music
| first, but if they were going to perform that piece for
| profit at an event or on an album they'd need a license
| of some sort.
|
| This whole mess seems to be another case of "if I can
| dance around the law fast enough, big enough, and with
| enough grey areas then I can get away with it".
| dylan604 wrote:
| I was handed sheet music every year in band, and within a
| few weeks had it memorized. Books with music are also
| available in the library.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| As a student in a school band that debated whether to
| choose Pirates of the Caribbean vs Phantom of the Opera
| for our half time show, I remember the cost of the rights
| to the music was a factor in our decision.
|
| The school and library purchased the materials outright,
| again, OpenAI Meta et al never paid to read them, nor
| borrowed them from an institution that had any right to
| share.
|
| I'm a bit of an anti intellectual property anarchist
| myself but it grinds my gears that, given that we do live
| under the law, it is applied unequally.
| echelon wrote:
| If models can learn for free, then the models (training
| code, inference code, training data, weights) should also
| be free. No copyright for anybody.
|
| And if you sell the outputs of your model that you trained
| on free content, you shouldn't be able to hide behind trade
| secret.
| crorella wrote:
| > just like a model could
|
| It is not remotely the same, the companies training the
| models are stealing the content from the internet and then
| profiting from it when they charge for the use of those
| models.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _the companies training the models are stealing the
| content from the internet_
|
| Are you stealing a billboard when you see and remember
| it?
|
| The notion that _consuming_ the web is "stealing" needs
| to stop.
| crorella wrote:
| We are not taking about billboards here, we are talking
| about copyrighted works, like books. If you want to do
| mental gymnastics and call "consuming" the web the act of
| downloading books without paying for them, then go ahead,
| but don't pretend the rest will buy your delusion.
| Terretta wrote:
| On the contrary, even telling people which billboards are
| posted about what, and how to get to them to look at
| them, is "how it works".
|
| But the courts will get to clarify (in today's news):
|
| https://www.reuters.com/legal/news-corp-sued-by-brave-
| softwa...
| llamaimperative wrote:
| The question is whether it destroys the incentive to
| produce the work. That is the entire point of copyright
| and patent law.
|
| LLMs do indeed significantly reduce the incentive to
| produce original work.
| ben_w wrote:
| The more literature I consume, and the more I re-draft my
| own attempt, the more I see the patterns and tropes with
| everyone standing on the shoulders of those who came
| before.
|
| The general concept of "warp drive" was introduced by
| John W. Campbell in 1957, "Islands of Space". Popularised
| by Trek, turned into maths by Alcubierre. Islands of
| Space feels like it took inspiration from both H G Wells
| (needing to explain why the War of the Worlds' ending was
| implausible) and Jules Verne (gang of gentlemen have
| call-to-action, encounter difficulties that would crush
| them like a bug and are not merely fine, they go on to
| further great adventure and reward).
|
| Terry Pratchett had obvious inspirations from
| Shakespeare, Ringworld, Faust (in the title!).
|
| In the pandemic I read "The Deathworlders" (web fic, not
| the book series of similar name), and by the time I'd
| read too many shark jumps to continue, I had spotted many
| obvious _inspirations_ besides just the one that gave the
| name.
|
| If I studied medieval lit, I could probably do the same
| with Shakespeare's inspiration.
| simion314 wrote:
| >you can use that knowledge,
|
| Did OpenAI bought one copy of each book, or did they legaly
| borowed athe books and documents ?
|
| if you copy paste rom books and claim is your content you
| are plagiarizing. LLMs were provent to copy paste trained
| content so now what? Should only big Tech be excluded from
| plagiarizing ?
| pier25 wrote:
| > _just like a model could_
|
| Not really. You can't multiply yourself a million times to
| produce content at an industrial scale.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| This is why I think my array of hard drives full of movies
| isn't piracy. My server just learned about those movies and
| can tell me about them, is all. Just like a person!
| tsimionescu wrote:
| It doesn't, a real person can't legally obtain a copy of a
| copyrighted work without paying the copyright holder for
| it. This is what OpenAI is asking for: they don't want to
| pay for a single copy of a single book, and still they want
| to train their models on every single book in history (and
| song, and movie, and painting, and code base, and anything
| else they can get their hands on).
| bee_rider wrote:
| These AI models are just obviously new things. They aren't
| people, so any analogy about learning from the training
| material and selling your new skills is off base.
|
| On the other hand, they aren't just a copy of the training
| content, and whether the process that creates the weights
| is sufficiently transformative as to create a new work
| is... what's up for debate, right?
|
| Anyway I wish people would stop making these analogies.
| There isn't a law covering AI models yet. It is a big
| industry at this point, and the lack of clarity seems like
| something we'd expect everybody (legislators and industry)
| to want to rectify.
| amelius wrote:
| Totally agree. Except the current administration probably
| will interpret things the way they see fit ...
| aiono wrote:
| Can I pirate books to train myself?
| amelius wrote:
| Do you know Numerical Recipes in C?
|
| This discussion reminds me of it.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| And when I "learn" a verbatim copy of pages of that book,
| then write those pages out in Microsoft Word & sell those
| pages its legal?
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Even moreso, it only applies to initial model training by
| companies like OpenAI not other companies using those models
| to generate synthetic data to train their own models.
| binarymax wrote:
| Yeah it's crazy. I also suspect they might not be confident
| in their defense from the NYT lawsuit - if they're found in
| fault then it's going to be trouble.
| logsr wrote:
| It is hard to see how a court could decide that copyright
| does not apply to training LLMs without completely
| collapsing the entire legal structure for intellectual
| property.
|
| Conceptually, AI basically zeros out existing IP, and makes
| the AI the only IP that has any value. It is hard to
| imagine large rights holders and courts accepting that.
|
| The likely outcome is that courts rule against LLM
| creators/providers and they eventually have to settle on
| licensing fees with large corporate copyright holders
| similar to YouTube. Unlike YouTube though, this would open
| up LLM companies to class action lawsuits from the general
| public, and so it could be a much worse outcome for them.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Are there certain books that federal law prevents you from
| reading? Which ones?
|
| Maybe terrorist manuals and some child pornography, but what
| else?
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| I would assume that the request is for it to apply to models
| in the way that it currently applies to humans.
|
| If a human buys a movie, he can watch it and learn about its
| contents, and then talk about those contents, and he can
| create a similar movie with a similar theme.
|
| If OpenAI buys a movie and shows it to their model, it's
| unclear whether the model can talk about the contents of the
| movie and create a similar movie with a similar theme.
| m1el wrote:
| somehow, I suspect openai didn't "buy" all of the articles,
| books, websites they crawled and torrented.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Is OpenAI buying the movie, or just taking it?
|
| Since "buying" a movie (as it currently applies to humans)
| is just buying a limited license to it for private viewing,
| can't the copyright holder opt to limit the $4.99 license
| terms to human viewing, and charge $4999 for an AI training
| license?
|
| Or OpenAI could buy movies the way Disney does, by buying
| the actual copyright to the film.
| htrp wrote:
| >Since "buying" a movie (as it currently applies to
| humans) is just buying a limited license to it for
| private viewing, can't the copyright holder opt to limit
| the $4.99 license terms to human viewing, and charge
| $4999 for an AI training license?
|
| the Reddit data licensing model
| da_chicken wrote:
| > Since "buying" a movie is just buying a license to it,
| can't the copyright holder opt to limit the $4.99 license
| terms to human viewing, and charge $4999 for an AI
| training license?
|
| That's exactly what already happens currently. Buying a
| movie on DVD doesn't give you the right to present it for
| hundreds of people. You need to pay for a public
| performance license or commercial licence. This is why a
| TV network or movie theatre can't just buy a DVD at
| Walmart and then show the movie as often as it likes.
|
| Copyright doesn't just grant exclusive distribution
| rights. It grants exclusive _use_ rights as well, and
| permits the owner to control how their work is used.
| Since AI rights are not granted by any existing licenses,
| and license terms generally reserve any rights not
| explicitly specified, feeding copyrighted works into an
| AI data model is a reserved right of the owner.
| regularjack wrote:
| OpenAI didn't pay for most of the content it used.
| voytec wrote:
| This is basically "allow us to steal others' IP". It's hard
| not to treat Altman like a common thief.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Not only that
|
| The model gets to use training data of all humans.
|
| But if you use the model as training data OAI will say you're
| infringing T&Cs
| taurath wrote:
| It still warps my brain, they've taken trillions of dollars of
| industry and made a product worth billions by stealing it. IP
| is practically the basis of the economy, and these models warp
| and obfuscate ownership of everything, like a giant reset
| button on who can hold knowledge. It wouldn't be legal, or
| allowed if tech wasn't seen as the growth path of our economy.
| It's a hell of a needle to thread and it's unlikely that anyone
| will ever again be able to model from data so open.
| woah wrote:
| "IP" is a very new concept in our culture and completely
| absent in other cultures. It was invented to prevent verbatim
| reprints of books, but even so, the publishing industry
| existed for hundreds of years before then. It's been expanded
| greatly in the past 50 years.
|
| Acting like copyright is some natural law of the universe
| that LLMs are upending simply because they can learn from
| written texts is silly.
|
| If you want to argue that it should be radically expanded to
| the point that not only a work, but even the ideas and
| knowledge contained in that work should be censored and
| restricted, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit that
| this is a radical new expansion for a body of law that has
| already been radically expanded relatively recently.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > It was invented to prevent verbatim reprints of books
|
| It was also invented to keep the publishing houses under
| control and keep them from papering the land in anti-crown
| propaganda (like the stuff that fueled the civil war in
| England and got Charles I beheaded).
|
| Probably one of the biggest brewing fights will be whether
| the models are free to tell the truth or whether they'll be
| mouthpieces for the ruling class. As long as they play ball
| with the powers that be, I predict copyrights won't be a
| problem at all for the chosen winners.
| LtWorf wrote:
| The problem here is it's still illegal for me to do a
| backup copy of the stuff i bought, but they can do whatever
| they want.
| EGreg wrote:
| Gearing up for a fight between the two major industries based
| on exploitative business models:
|
| Copyright cartels (RIAA, MPAA) that monetized young artists
| without paying them much at all [1], vs the AI megalomaniacs
| who took all the work for free and used Kenyans at $2 an hour
| [2] so that they can raise "$7 trillion" for their AI
| infrastructure
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/1fzyr0u/arti...
|
| [2] https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
| Bjorkbat wrote:
| Can't believe I'm actually rooting for the copyright cartels
| in this fight.
|
| But that does make me think, that in a sane society with a
| functional legislature I wouldn't have to pick a dog in this
| fight. I'd have have enough faith in lawmakers and the
| political process to pursue a path towards copyright reform
| that reigns in abuses from both AI companies and megacorp
| rightsholders
|
| Alas, for now I'm hoping that aforementioned megacorps sue
| OpenAI into a painful lesson.
| visarga wrote:
| > Can't believe I'm actually rooting for the copyright
| cartels in this fight.
|
| The same megacorps are suing Internet Archive for their
| collection of 78rpm records. These guys would rather see
| art orphaned and die.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Yup, we live in a pretty depressing world.
|
| More generally the best we can hope for us to discourage
| concentrated power, both in government and corporate
| forms.
| __loam wrote:
| They're suing Internet Archive because IA scanned a bunch
| of copyrighted books to put online for free (e: without
| even attempting to get permission to do so) then refused
| to take them down when they got a C&D lol. IA is putting
| the whole project at risk so they can do literal
| copyright infringement with no consequences.
| blitzar wrote:
| I should have "freedom to learn" about any Tesla in the
| showroom, any F-35 I see laying around an airbase or the
| contents of anyone in the governments bank account.
| NoOn3 wrote:
| According to this scheme, if you find a bug and can read the
| bank's data, then you can use it as you want.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Nope, have to feed it into an llm first, afterwards it's
| legitimate.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Chinese AI must implement socialist values by law, but law is a
| much more fluid fuzzy thing in China than in the USA (although
| the USA seems to be moving away from rule of law recently).
| sva_ wrote:
| > Chinese AI must implement socialist values by law
|
| I don't doubt it but am interested to read a source? I know
| the models can't talk about things like Tiananmen Square
| 1989, but what does 'implementing socialist values by law'
| look like?
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| Socialism and freedom of speech aren't mutually exclusive
| samstave wrote:
| Highly recommend the Lex Fridman pod on Deepseek:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1f-o0nqpEI
|
| >> _Dylan Patel is the founder of SemiAnalysis, a research &
| analysis company specializing in semiconductors, GPUs, CPUs,
| and AI hardware. Nathan Lambert is a research scientist at the
| Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) and the author of a blog on AI
| called Interconnects._
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| Can you expand your post and explain why?
| pr337h4m wrote:
| >Chris Lehane, OpenAI's vice president of global affairs, said in
| an interview that the US AI Safety Institute - a key government
| group focused on AI - could act as the main point of contact
| between the federal government and the private sector. If
| companies work with the group voluntarily to review models, the
| government could provide them "with liability protections
| including preemption from state based regulations that focus on
| frontier model security," according to the proposal.
|
| Given OpenAI's history and relationship with the "AI safety"
| movement, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that they
| also lobbied for the same proposed state-level regulations
| they're seeking relief from.
| echelon wrote:
| Regulatory moat and copyright relief for me, but not for thee.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Problem is they built the moat before moving into the castle.
| altairprime wrote:
| Moats are not a problem if your liege lord teleports in and
| lowers the drawbridge for you.
| dylan604 wrote:
| no need for teleportation. just climb the walls. the
| castle is not protected, and has no pots of oil or
| flaming arrows yet.
| mjmas wrote:
| unfortunately their Ai refuses to help them attack the
| castle, citing safety concerns.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| Moat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that
| contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing
| power.
|
| "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a
| defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying
| that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than
| an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers.
|
| "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell
| employees than "we need to be more anti-competitive."
| sitkack wrote:
| It is pretty obvious that every use of that word is to
| communicate a stance that is allergic to free markets.
|
| A moat by definition has such a large strategic asymmetry
| that one cannot cross it without a very high chance of
| death. A functioning SEC and FTC as well as CFPB https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_... are
| necessary for efficient markets.
|
| Now might be the time to rollout consumer club cards that
| are adversarial in nature.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| A "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to,
| and most moats are innocuous:
|
| * The secret formula for Coke
|
| * ASML's technology
|
| * The "Gucci" brand
|
| * Apple's network effects
|
| These are genuine competitive advantages in the market.
| Regulatory moats and other similar things _are_ an assault
| on the free market. Moats in general are not.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a
| defense
|
| This is a drastic take, I think to most of us in the
| industry "moat" simply means whatever difficult-to-
| replicate competitive advantage that a firm has invested
| heavily in.
|
| Regulatory capture and graft aren't moats, they're plain
| old corrupt business practices.
| svilen_dobrev wrote:
| > ask for regulation then ask for exempt
|
| That's exactly what has been happening:
|
| Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397
| api wrote:
| OpenAI lobbied for restrictive rules, and now they want an
| "out" but only for themselves. Absolute naked regulatory
| capture.
| hnlurker22 wrote:
| Just like when people complain about OpenAI's ill practices
| then they use it the most
| tdeck wrote:
| Can anyone say which of the LLM companies is the least
| "shady"?
|
| If I want to use an LLM to augment my work, and don't
| have a massively powerful local machine to run local
| models, what are the best options?
|
| Obviously I saw the news about OpenAI's head of research
| openly supporting war crimes, but I don't feel confident
| about what's up with the other companies.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| The Claude people seem to be quite chill.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Agreed. They're a bit mental on "safety" but given that's
| not likely to be a real issue then they're fine.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Just use what works for you.
|
| E.g. i'm _very_ outspoken about my preferences for open
| llm practices like executed by Meta and Deepseek. I 'm
| very aware of the regulatory caption and pulling up the
| ladder tactics by the "AI safety" lobby.
|
| However. In my own operations I do still rely on OpenAI
| because it works better than what I tried so far for my
| use case.
|
| That said, when I can find an open model based SaaS
| operator that serves my needs as well without major
| change investment, I will switch.
| hnlurker22 wrote:
| Why not vibe-code it using OpenAI
| PeterStuer wrote:
| I'm not talking about me developing the applications, but
| about using LLM services inside the products in
| operation.
|
| For my "vibe coding" I've been using OpenAI, Grok and
| Deepseek if using small method generation, documentation
| shortcuts, library discovery and debugging counts as
| such.
| bigbuppo wrote:
| My AI strategy is still "No".
| ramses0 wrote:
| You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but even
| right now saying "I don't use AI's" is like saying "I
| don't use search engines".
|
| It'll carry you a little farther but not much.
|
| I'm on the same page as you, preferring to have things
| locally and a bit of arms length with AI, but it's a hell
| of a lot better than googling for stack overflow on stuff
| like "how to invert the keys and values in a python
| dict?" or whatever random syntax and customary way of
| doing things when crossing among different programming
| languages.
|
| I haven't messed around with "scaffold me an HTML5
| three.js app and make it play space invaders" level
| stuff, but it seems like we might get there, one way or
| the other.
|
| The nice thing is it's like having a conversation with a
| topical expert on $SOMETHING instead of of piecing
| conversations together from stack overflow, blog posts,
| and forums.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-
| som...
| hnlurker22 wrote:
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/analogia-is-my-passion
| arkadiytehgraet wrote:
| I believe with regulatory capture the companies that pushed
| for the regulation in the first place at least comply with
| it (and hopefully the regulation is not worthless). This
| behaviour by ClosedAI is even worse: push for the
| regulation, then push for the exemption.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Regulatory capture is usually the company pushing for
| regulations that align with the business practices they
| already implement and would be hard for a competitor to
| implement. For example, a car company that wants to
| require all other manufactures to build and operate wind
| tunnels for aerodynamics testing. Or more realistically,
| regulations requiring 3rd party sellers for vehicles.
| samstave wrote:
| The beautiful thing about AI is that we can use such tools
| to expose so much corruptionand collusion in the
| government.
|
| The insider trading (i.e. Pelosi and such) is absolute
| nuts.
|
| But OpenAI is pulling a super weird version of Google's
| pulling of the "Don't be evil" statement whereby OAI has
| been courting extreme MIC stance - and I would really like
| to know what tooling they have given the intel communities.
| What does the NSA have access to via their massive Utah
| DAtacenters managed by AWS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
|
| https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5279550/openai-touts-
| ne...
|
| And what and how do these facts play into DOGE?
|
| ---
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/openais-sam-altman-says-
| israel...
| mystified5016 wrote:
| No amount of exposure so far has had any effect on
| corruption. That AI will somehow improve this is just
| magical thinking.
| bmitc wrote:
| It's a common tactic in new fields. Fusion, AI, you name it
| are all actively lobbying to get new regulation because they
| are "different", and the individual companies want to ensure
| that it's them that sets the tone.
| mkagenius wrote:
| Looks the same as taking "rebate for green energy" and then
| asking to "stop such rebates" a few years later
| CPLX wrote:
| The fact that Chris Lehane is the one involved in this should
| tell you all you need to know about how on the level all this
| is.
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| For those of us who don't recognize him by name, can you
| spell it out a little more clearly please?
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Was he not the one that lead coverups for the Clintons?
| natch wrote:
| Heavy hitter lawyer, PR expert. Some google terms: Masters
| of disaster, Spin cycle.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| Sounds like a pleasant person.
| sunshine-o wrote:
| Just learning about that guy and reading his Wikipedia page
| will give me nightmares for the years to come.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Regulatory capture is a common strategy for synthetic
| monopolistic competitive firms, and suckers high on their own
| ego.
|
| Deepseek already proved regulation will not be effective at
| maintaining a market lead. =3
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Why won't it?
|
| If you get fined millions of dollars (for copyright, of
| course) if you're found to have anything resembling DeepSeek
| on your machine - no company in the US is going to run it.
|
| The personal market is going to be much smaller than the
| enterprise market.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The artificial token commodity can now be functionally
| replicated on a per location basis on $40k in hardware (far
| lower cost than nvidia hardware.)
|
| Copyright licensing is just a detail corporations are well
| experienced dealing with in a commercial setting, and note
| some gov organizations are already exempt from copyright
| laws. However, people likely just won't host in countries
| with silly policies.
|
| Best regards =3
| doctorwho42 wrote:
| Great another market force to widdle away the US' economic
| power, so obviously trump/musk will pass this immediately
| HillRat wrote:
| As it is, this is a bullshit document, which I'm sure their
| lobbyists know; OSTP is authorized to "serve as a source of
| scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the
| President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs
| of the Federal Government," and has no statutory authority to
| regulate _anything_ , let alone preempt state law. In the
| absence of any explicit Congressional legislation to serve to
| federally preempt state regulation of AI, there's nothing the
| White House can do. (In fact, other than export controls and a
| couple of Defense Production Act wishlist items, everything in
| their "proposal" is out of the Executive's hands and the ambit
| of Congress.)
| throwway120385 wrote:
| You mean there's nothing the White House can do under the
| rule of law. There's plenty the White House can do under the
| color of law.
| fsndz wrote:
| DeepSeek really shook them to their core. Now they go for
| regulatory capture. Such a huge disappointment. Open source AI
| will win: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/the-
| laymans-...
| noosphr wrote:
| It's not just them. Everyone is scrambling.
|
| US tech, and western tech in general, is very culturally -
| and by this I mean in the type of coding people have done -
| homogeneous.
|
| The deep seek papers published over the last two weeks are
| the biggest thing to happen in IA since GPT3 came out. But
| unless you understand distributed file systems, networking,
| low level linear algebra, and half a dozen other fields at
| least tangentially then you'd have not realized they are
| anything important at all.
|
| Meanwhile I'm going through the interview process for a tier
| 1 US AI lab and I'm having to take a test about circles and
| squares, then write a compsci 101 red/black tree search
| algorithm while talking to an AI, being told not to use AI at
| the same time. This is with an internal reference being keen
| for me to be on board. At this point I'm honestly wondering
| if they aren't just using the interview process to generate
| high quality validation data for free.
|
| Xing Yun De Shi ,Tong Guo Zhuan Huan Qi Mo Xing ,Dang Wo Men
| Guang Rong De Ling Dao Ren Xi Jin Ping Cong Zi Ben Zhu Yi Zou
| Gou Shou Zhong Jie Fang Wo Men Shi ,Wo Bu Xu Yao Xue Xi Zhong
| Wen .
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| 100%. Western tech needs the competition. They are very
| prone to navel-gazing simply because SV ended up being the
| location for tech once.
|
| Funny how they like to crow about free markets, while also
| running to daddy government when their position is
| threatened.
| noosphr wrote:
| Competition can only work when there is variation between
| the entities competing.
|
| In the US right now you can have a death match between
| every AI lab, then give all the resources to the one
| which wins and you'd still have largely the same results
| as if you didn't.
|
| The reason why Deepseek - it started life as a HFT firm -
| hit as hard as it did is because it was a cross
| disciplinary team that had very non-standard skill sets.
|
| I've had to try and head hunt network and FPGA engineers
| away from HFT firms and it was basically impossible. They
| already make big tech (or higher) salaries without the
| big tech bullshit - which none of them would ever pass.
| cbzbc wrote:
| > I've had to try and head hunt network and FPGA
| engineers away from HFT firms and it was basically
| impossible. They already make big tech (or higher)
| salaries without the big tech bullshit - which none of
| them would ever pass.
|
| Can confirm. There are downsides, and it can get
| incredibly stressed at times, but there are all sorts of
| big tech imposed hoops you don't have to jump through.
| spaceguillotine wrote:
| Bottom is about to drop out thats why, ethics are out the
| window already and its gonna be worse as they claw to stay
| relevant.
|
| Its a niche product that tried to go mainstream and the
| general public doesn't want it, just look at iPhone 16 sales
| and Windows 11, everyone is happier with the last version
| without AI.
| comboy wrote:
| Has OpenAI hired McKinsey yet?
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I'm unsure if you can layoff AI
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Tell you what, set up a Federal level disclosure process online
| of all the copyright protected works used in training OpenAI for
| the creators / rights holders to get equity (out of the pockets
| of the C-Suite and Board) via claiming their due, and we'll take
| you seriously.
|
| All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism.
| _bin_ wrote:
| this is a misread. it's still unclear whether use of
| copyrighted works to train LLMs falls under fair use but, with
| current laws, the answer is probably yes. you may not like that
| but, even if it changes, existing models were trained under
| existing law.
|
| also what liability do you expect them to assume? they want to
| offer models while saying "to use these, you must agree we
| don't have liability for their outputs." if companies want to
| use these models but don't want to deal with liability
| themselves, so they demand the government shift the liability
| to the model vendor (despite the conditions the vendor
| applied), that sounds like coward capitalism to me. don't like
| it? don't use their models.
| moffkalast wrote:
| That's just feudalism with extra steps
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _All the profit and none of the liability is Coward Capitalism_
|
| While I agree with you in principle, there's little that can be
| done because the current crop of crony capitalists will likely
| support the idea of no liability for tech companies. Especially
| when it comes to ripping off copyrighted material. Everything
| from blog posts, to videos, to music, to any source code you
| post on the internet will be used to train models to be better
| writers, artists, musicians, and programmers.
|
| I feel like the only option left is to find some way to make
| money on the output of the models. Because the politicians are
| definitely going to allow the models to make money based on
| your output.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| appeasement?
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| There's an extra word in your last sentence. Privatizing profit
| and socializing risk and loss is maximizing profit for the
| individual, and profit maximizing behavior is the only
| fundamental underpinning of capitalism.
| Jcampuzano2 wrote:
| I know a lot of people will hate on things like this, but the
| reality is they are right that guardrails only serve to hurt us
| in the long run, at least at this pivotal point in time. I don't
| like Trump personally as a caveat.
|
| Yes it is a fact they did build themselves up on top of mountains
| of copyrighted material, and that AI has a lot of potential to do
| harm, but if they are forced to stop or slow down foreign actors
| will just push forward and innovate without guardrails and we
| will just fall behind as the rest of the world pushes forward.
|
| Its easy to see how foreign tech is quickly gaining ground. If
| they truly cared about still propping America up, they should
| allow some guardrails to be pushed past.
| notavalleyman wrote:
| > guardrails only serve to hurt us in the long run, at least at
| this pivotal point in time.
|
| What evidence led you to that conclusion?
| int_19h wrote:
| Look up "alignment tax".
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| The law which prevented US corporations from using bribery to
| win business in other nations was recently rescinded on exactly
| this basis: US corporations are hamstrung unless they can buy
| their wins. Superficially, this makes sense, and that was all
| that was offered to justify the change. That guardrail was
| dumb! But like most things, there are reasons to not do this
| which were completely ignored.
|
| For instance, a company may not desire to hand out cash to win
| business; previously, when solicited they could say, "Sorry, it
| is illegal for me to do so." Now there is no such shield.
|
| Second, in many cases it will be two or more US businesses
| trying to win business in some other country, and the change of
| the law only makes it more expensive for those two companies,
| as they now must play a game of bribery chicken to win the
| business.
|
| Third, the US loves to claim it is is a democracy and is
| working to spread democracy. By legitimizing bribes paid to
| foreign officials over the interests of their voting populace,
| we are undermining democracy in those countries (not that
| anyone who pays attention believes that the US's foreign policy
| is anything but self interested and divorced from spreading
| democratic ideals).
| 1shooner wrote:
| Underlying this perspective is the assumption that this is a
| uni-lineal race, and the end of that race must be arrived at
| first, and what lies at the end of that race is in the common
| good. There is no evidence for any of this.
| reverendsteveii wrote:
| Is it me or does it feel like most of what the federal government
| does nowadays is make it illegal for government to make things
| illegal?
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| It probably needs to be a law not an executive order but I don't
| hate the idea.
|
| States have the power to make it prohibitively expensive to
| operate in those states, leaving people to either go to VPNs or
| use AI's hosted in other countries where they don't care if
| they're not following whatever new AI law California decides to
| pass. And companies would choose just to use datacenters not in
| the prohibitive states and ban ips from those states.
|
| Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access from
| California, would the inter state commerce clause not take effect
| and California would have no power anyways?
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > Course if a company hosts in us-east-1, and allows access
| from California, would the inter state commerce clause not take
| effect and California would have no power anyways?
|
| California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a
| different state. They would have to comply when serving
| California customers within the state of California, regardless
| of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it doesn't
| matter where my data is stored, they still have to delete it
| upon my request.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >California can't legislate how they serve a customer in a
| different state. They would have to comply when serving
| California customers within the state of California,
| regardless of where the dc is located. I.E. Under the CCPA it
| doesn't matter where my data is stored, they still have to
| delete it upon my request.
|
| I know this is what California thinks, I just personally
| don't see how this isn't inter state commerce.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It is, of course, but that doesn't mean California can't
| regulate it; simply that federal laws take precedence.
|
| If states couldn't regulate interstate commerce taking
| place in their own states, they effectively couldn't
| regulate any commerce because court decisions have found
| that essentially all economic activity, even growing food
| for your own consumption, falls under the banner of
| interstate commerce.
| dynm wrote:
| > even growing food for your own consumption
|
| Hey I know this one! In case anyone is interested, here's
| the case:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Unless their a superseding federal law, yeah, California
| can successfully prosecute businesses for breaking the laws
| within its' jurisdiction.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Are you advocating to take the power relegated to the states
| away from the states and give it to the federal government in
| direct violation of the Constitution of the United States?
| hiatus wrote:
| How is this not directly tied to interstate commerce (and
| copyright law) and thus under Congress' enumerated powers?
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
| int_19h wrote:
| Interstate commerce clause by itself doesn't prevent it; it
| merely gives Congress the _ability_ to override the state laws
| if Congress deems it necessary.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Your argument for regulation is...reasons why it works out
| without regulation, and is already covered by existing
| regulations?
|
| Granted the "regulation" I'm referring to above is a law or EO
| to block California's regulation, and I don't support
| California's regulation either. But I believe regulations
| should only exist when there's no better alternative, because
| they usually have unintended consequences. If it's true that
| OpenAI can basically just leave California, the better
| alternative for the government may be doing nothing.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > leaving people to either go to VPNs
|
| .. which is the prevailing situation for people dealing with
| state-by-state age verification at the moment.
| qoez wrote:
| JD vance seems to be quite aware of OpenAIs meta strategy so I
| wouldn't be surprised if this is declined (ie semi specifically
| aimed at something they want to force them to comply with).
| msp26 wrote:
| Relevant (I don't know why the article doesn't link to them
| directly): https://openai.com/global-affairs/openai-proposals-
| for-the-u... https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-
| rfi/ec680b75-d539...
| zombiwoof wrote:
| "Freedom to make money"
| crorella wrote:
| If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors
| and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of
| their models.
| reilly3000 wrote:
| They should train a model on a clean dataset and copyright
| dataset, charge extra on the copyright model, and pay a royalty
| to copyright owners when their works are cited in a response.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| The problem there is how are we defining "works are cited"?
| Also couldn't you just do the same thing done to spotify and
| make bot farms to generate millions of citations?
| ideashower wrote:
| I like this and agree. It should be opt-in. I almost feel as
| if it should be something exciting and rewarding.
| visarga wrote:
| But who should pay? The model developers? Training models is a
| cost center. And what about open source AI, should we legislate
| it out of existence?
|
| How about the AI providers? they operate on thin margins, and
| make just cents a million tokens. If one provider is too
| expensive, users quickly switch.
|
| Maybe the users? Users derive the lion share of benefits from
| AI. But those benefits are hard to quantize.
|
| Maybe a blanket tax? That would simplify things, but would put
| all creatives on a quantitative rather than qualitative
| criteria.
|
| I think generative AI is the worst copyright infringement tool
| ever devised. It's slow, expensive and imprecise. On the other
| hand copying is fast, free and perfect. I think nobody can, for
| science, regurgitate a full book with AI, it won't have
| fidelity to the original.
|
| The real enemy of any artist is the long tail of works,
| sometimes spanning decades, that they have to compete against.
| So it's other authors. That is why we are in an attention
| economy, and have seen the internet enshittified.
|
| The most creative part of internet ignores copyright royalties.
| From open source, to wikipedia, open scientific publication and
| even social networks, if everyone demanded royalties none of
| them would be possible.
| kweingar wrote:
| > The most creative part of internet ignores copyright
| royalties. From open source, to wikipedia, open scientific
| publication and even social networks, if everyone demanded
| royalties none of them would be possible.
|
| Notably, in all of these cases the people involved consent to
| participating.
| basisword wrote:
| >> The real enemy of any artist is the long tail of works,
| sometimes spanning decades, that they have to compete
| against.
|
| Had to check this wasn't sama.
|
| You seriously believe the real enemy of artists is other
| artists? Not the guys making billions and trying to convince
| us "the computers are just reading it like a human"?
| Palmik wrote:
| Funnily, OpenAI also calls for the ban of their free and
| open-weight Chinese competitors DeepSeek and Qwen.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| there are some free models out there from both chat companies
| and open source
| 93po wrote:
| i really don't understand this argument. at which point is it
| violating copyright versus an intelligence learning and making
| content the same way as humans?
|
| it was living cells, but they worked as transistors, would it
| be ok?
|
| it was whole-brain emulation on silicon transistors, would it
| be ok?
|
| it was a generative AI similar to what we have today, but 100x
| more sentient and self aware, is that ok?
|
| if you locked a human in a room with nothing but tolkien books
| for 20 years, then asked them to write a fantasy novel, is that
| ok?
|
| All art is built on learning from previous art. I don't
| understand the logic of it being a computer so suddenly now
| it's wrong and bad. I also don't understand general support of
| intellectual property when it overwhelmingly benefits the mega
| wealthy and stifles creative endeavors like nothing else. You
| art isn't less valuable just because a computer makes something
| similar, in the same way it's not less valuable if another
| human copies your style and makes new art in your style.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > I don't understand the logic of it being a computer so
| suddenly now it's wrong and bad
|
| My answer to this is one I've written already before:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42720749
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| You "really don't understand" the difference? Do we need to
| spell out that these systems aren't human artists simply
| looking at paintings and admiring features about them? They
| are Python programs running linear algebra libraries, sucking
| in pixels from anywhere they can find them, and then being
| used by corporations with billion dollar valuations to
| increase investor/shareholder value at the expense of the
| people who provided the artwork to train the systems - people
| who, as you already know, are NOT paid for providing their
| work, and who never CONSENTED to having their work used for
| such a purpose. Now do you "understand the difference"?
| ben_w wrote:
| AI is a new thing. It's OK to say you don't want it, that
| it's a threat to livelihoods. But it's a mistake to use
| these kinds of arguments, that are predicated on such
| narrow points that overlap so much with human brains.
|
| It's going to be a threat to my career, soon enough -- but
| the threat it poses to me exists even if it never read any
| of my blog posts or my github repos. Even if it had never
| read a single line of ObjC or Swift.
|
| > Do we need to spell out that these systems aren't human
| artists simply looking at paintings and admiring features
| about them?
|
| In a word, yes.
|
| In more words: explain what it would take for an AI to
| count as a person -- none of what you wrote connects with
| what was in the comment you replied to.
|
| You dismiss AI as "python": would it help if the maths was
| done as the pure linear amplification range of the quantum
| effects in transistors?; you dismiss them as "sucking in
| pixels from anywhere they can find them" like humans don't
| spend all day with their eyes open; you complain
| "corporations with billion dollar valuations to increase
| investor/shareholder value at the expense of the people who
| provided the artwork to train the systems" like this isn't
| exactly what happens with government funded education of
| humans.
|
| I anticipate that within my lifetime it will be possible
| for a human brain to be preserved on death, scanned, and
| the result used as a full brain sim that remembers what the
| human remembered at the the time of death. Would it matter
| if the original human had memorised Harry Potter end-to-end
| and the upload could quote it all perfectly? Would Rowling
| get the right to delete that brain upload?
|
| I'm following a YouTube channel where they're growing mouse
| neurons on electrode grids to train them to play video
| games. It's entirely plausible, given the current rate of
| progress, that 15 years from now, GPT-4 could be encoded
| onto a brain organoid the size of a living mouse's brain --
| does it magically become OK then? And in 30 years, that
| same thing as an implant into a human?
|
| The threat to my economic prospects is already present in
| completely free models whose weights are given away and
| cannot avail the billion-dollar corporations who made them.
| I can download free models and run them on my laptop,
| outputting tokens faster than I can read them for an energy
| budget lower than my own brain, corporations who made those
| models don't profit directly by me doing this, and if those
| corporations go bankrupt I can still run those models.
|
| The risk to my economic value is _not_ because any of these
| "stole" anything, but because the models are _useful and
| cheap_.
|
| GenAI art (and voice) is... well, despite the fact I will
| admit to enjoying it privately/on free content, whenever I
| see it on products or blog posts, or when I hear it in the
| voices on YouTube videos, it's a sign the human behind it
| has zero budget and therefore whatever it is I don't want
| to buy it. People already use it because it's cheap, it's a
| sign of being cheap, signs of cheap are a proxy of
| generally poor quality.
|
| But that's not going to save my career, nobody's going to
| decide to boycott all iPhone apps that aren't certified
| "made by 100% organic grass-fed natural humans with no AI
| assistance".
|
| So believe me, I get that it's scary. But the arguments
| you're using aren't good ones.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| No one said they "don't want it".
|
| No one said "it's scary".
|
| No one is "dismissing them".
|
| It seems like you're arguing against some other person
| you've made up in your mind. I use these systems every
| single day, but if you don't understand the argument
| about consent and the extremely obvious difference
| between Python programs and humans that I already pointed
| out, then no one can help you. I'll keep making these
| arguments, because they _are_ good ones, and they are
| obvious to any human being who isn 't stuck in tech-bro
| fairy land blabbering about how human consciousness is
| completely identical to Python linear algebra libraries
| when any 6 year old child knows with certainty they are
| not.
|
| > In a word, yes.
|
| This is, frankly, embarrassing.
| ben_w wrote:
| > No one said they "don't want it".
|
| Your own words suggest this. Many others are more
| explicit. There are calls for models to be forcibly
| deleted. Your own statements here about lack of consent
| are still in this vein.
|
| > No one said "it's scary".
|
| Many, including me, find it so.
|
| > No one is "dismissing them".
|
| You, specifically you, are -- "feeling or showing that
| something is unworthy of consideration".
|
| > if you don't understand the argument about consent and
| the extremely obvious difference between Python programs
| and humans that I already pointed out, then no one can
| help you.
|
| Consent is absolutely an argument I get. It's
| specifically where I'm agreeing with you.
|
| The other half of that...
|
| Python, like all programming languages, is universal.
| Python programs can implement physics, so trying to use
| the argument " _because_ it 's implemented on silicon
| rather than chemistry" is a distinction without a
| difference.
|
| Quantum mechanics is linear algebra.
|
| > I'll keep making these arguments, because they are good
| ones, and they are obvious to any human being who isn't
| stuck in tech-bro fairy land blabbering about how human
| consciousness is completely identical to Python linear
| algebra libraries when any 6 year old child knows with
| certainty they are not.
|
| (An example of you "dismissing" AI).
|
| Then you'll keep being confused and enraged about why
| people disagree with you.
|
| And not just because you have a wildly wrong
| understanding of what 6 year olds think about. I remember
| being 6, all the silly things I believed back then. What
| my classmates believed falsely. How far most of us were
| from understanding what algebra was, let alone
| distinguishing linear algebra from other kinds.
|
| I've got a philosophy A-level, which is enough to know
| that "consciousness" is a completely unsolved question
| and absolutely nobody agrees what the minimum
| requirements are for it. 40 different definitions, we
| don't even all agree what the _question_ is yet, much
| less then answer.
|
| But I infer from you bring it up, that you think
| "consciousness" is an important thing that AI is missing?
|
| Well perhaps it is something current AI miss, something
| their architecture hasn't got -- when we can't agree what
| the question is, any answer is possible. We evolved it,
| but just because it can pop up for no good reason doesn't
| mean it must be present everywhere. (I say much the same
| to people who are convinced AI must have it: we don't
| know). So, what if machines are not conscious? Why does
| that matter?
|
| And you've not answered one of my examples. To repeat:
|
| I'm following a YouTube channel where they're growing
| mouse neurons on electrode grids to train them to play
| video games. It's entirely plausible, given the current
| rate of progress, that 15 years from now, GPT-4 could be
| encoded onto a brain organoid the size of a living
| mouse's brain -- does it magically become OK then? And in
| 30 years, that same thing as an implant into a human?
|
| I don't think that is meaningfully distinct, morally
| speaking, from doing this in silicon. Making the
| information alive and in my own brain makes it _not_
| python, but all the consent issues remain.
| esafak wrote:
| No, they _should_ pay. The solution is not to make everything
| free, but cost the market rate. Somebody made these things; pay
| them.
| iamleppert wrote:
| He should have offered for every purchase of OpenAI services, a
| portion would be used to purchase TrumpCoin. That would have been
| a more effective bribe.
| crorella wrote:
| or teslers!
| croes wrote:
| > OpenAI has asked the Trump administration to help shield
| artificial intelligence companies from a growing number of
| proposed state regulations if they voluntarily share their models
| with the federal government.
|
| That sounds like corruption
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I'm shocked
| dtquad wrote:
| It is interesting that it is not the
| Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.)
| that is lobbying US states to go after OpenAI and other American
| AI companies.
|
| It's the New York Times and various journalist and writers'
| unions that are leading the charge against American AI.
|
| American journalists and opinion piece writers want to kill
| American AI and let China and Russia have the global lead. Why?
| Have they taught about the long consequences of what they are
| doing?
| btreecat wrote:
| I think content creators want to be compensated for their work
| that's being used for commercial purposes.
|
| I think you're framing it in a way that makes it seem like they
| don't want to be compensated for working, they just want to
| stop other people from starting a new industry, which doesn't
| seem like a good faith understanding of the situation.
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| Business and tech idea: make it so that it's like Spotify for
| AI.
|
| Everytime an answer is drawn from "certain learned weights,"
| make it so that the source of that knowledge is paid cents
| per volume.
| affinepplan wrote:
| yeah this sounds like it'll be reliably enforced for sure
| InvidFlower wrote:
| While that is cool in principal, I'm not sure how well it'd
| actually work in reality. First, there is the technical
| challenge. My understanding is the weights can have a lot
| of fluctuation, especially early on. How do we actually
| determine how much influence a given piece of content has
| on the final weights?
|
| Then if we get past that, my suspicion is that you could
| game the training. Like have as much of the process happen
| via public domain sources or pay-once licenses. That would
| cover a lot of the fundamental knowledge and processes.
| Then you could fine-tune on copyrighted data. That might
| actually make it easier to see how much influence on the
| final weights that content has, but is also would probably
| be a lot less influence. There's a big difference between a
| painting of an apple being the main contribution to the
| concept of "apple" in an image model, vs mention of that
| painting corresponding to a few weights that just reference
| a bunch of other concepts that were learned via open data.
| esafak wrote:
| Running it is probably costly, but there are papers on
| "influence analysis": _Training data influence analysis and
| estimation: a survey_ (https://link.springer.com/content/pd
| f/10.1007/s10994-023-064...)
|
| It would be easier to negotiate a fixed cost on using a
| particular datum per training of a model.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The market for creative works breaks down as follows. You have
| pay-in-advance arrangements such as patronage, commissioning,
| and so on. Those have been around forever. And then you have
| pay-if-you-want-it arrangements which only make economic sense
| because we have laws that grant monopolies to the creators of
| the work over the market for copies of that work.
|
| The first arrangement is very clearly a labor arrangement; but
| the second one is a deliberate attempt to force artists to act
| like capitalists. More importantly, because art is now acting
| like capital, it provides an obvious economic instinct to
| centralize[0]. So you get industrialized artistic production
| under the banner of publishing companies, whose business model
| is to buy out the copyright to new creative works and then
| exploit them.
|
| What AI art does is transfer money from the labor side of art
| to the capital side of art. The MAFIAA[1] wants AI art to exist
| because it means they can stop paying artists but still make
| royalties off selling licenses to the AI companies. This
| increases their profit margins. Meanwhile, the journalists
| can't sell you old news; they need to spend lots of time and
| money gathering it every day. That business model only works in
| a world where _writers_ are scarce, not just the writing itself
| being artificially scarce.
|
| [0] We can see this with cryptocurrency, which is laughably
| centralized despite being a deliberate attempt to decentralize
| money.
|
| [1] Music and Film Industry Association of America, a
| hypothetical merger of the RIAA and MPAA from a satirical news
| article
| NoOn3 wrote:
| With these proposed rules, American AI may be able to surpass
| the AI of China and Russia, but will American creators and
| ordinary people be happy with this, because all the money will
| end up in the pockets of Sam Altman and other billionaires, and
| ordinary creators will be left with nothing?
| pessimizer wrote:
| > It is interesting that it is not the
| Hollywood/Music/Entertainment copyright lobby (RIAA, MPAA etc.)
|
| Is it interesting? They hate the people who produce their
| product and are desperate to replace them with machines. Note
| that their unions also hate AI, and it was a central reason for
| for the Writer's Guild SAG-AFTRA strike, since you're bringing
| up the NYT unions.
|
| The NYT also stands to benefit not an iota from AI. It probably
| causes a burden because they have to make sure that their awful
| long-in-the-tooth editorial columnists aren't turning in LLM
| slop. It is entirely a negative for people who generate high
| quality content the hard way.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Maybe this data constraint from data vs GPU constraint for China
| will force America to innovate. Maybe innovate in data generation
| tehjoker wrote:
| private property is sacrosanct except when an exception that only
| applies to them it would make a billionaire richer
| tasuki wrote:
| I heard the theory that Elon Musk has a significant control over
| the current US government. They're not best pals with Sam Altman.
| This seems like it might be a good way to see how much power Elon
| actually has over the government?
| napsterbr wrote:
| I think we are beyond the "theory" phase by now. Just yesterday
| I saw the president of a country advertising the products of a
| private company (Trump making an obvious marketing ploy for
| Tesla).
|
| How can this ever be acceptable?
| dcchambers wrote:
| > How can this ever be acceptable?
|
| Because the only people capable of holding him accountable
| won't do it.
|
| The system is broken. The US Government/Constitution depends
| too much on the assumption that people will do the right
| thing.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The failure relative to the original expectations seems to
| be that the other branches of government aren't fighting to
| retain their authority because the things they're being
| overridden to do align too well with what they would do
| themselves.
| slt2021 wrote:
| I saw it even 4 years ago https://people.com/politics/joe-
| biden-takes-hybrid-jeep-for-...
| mattegan wrote:
| > ...his speech, which was attended by the CEOs of dozens
| of the world's largest automakers...
|
| I don't recall Biden reading off a price sheet for a single
| corporation. Seems a bit different than what happened
| yesterday the White House.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Trump has ultimate power in the administration. You are either
| dumb or blind if you cannot see that Trump is running the
| executive branch like a mob family. Kiss the leader, show him
| respect, and he will do things for you. Betray him, ignore him,
| or go behind his back and you will be squashed.
|
| People might think this is a partisan statement, but it's not.
| It's simply how he is operating. Want power? Want to get things
| done? Kiss his feet. You saw all the tech boys line up at his
| inauguration. You saw him tell Zelenskyy "Thank me". Elon might
| have power, but he is also on a leash.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| DeepSeek/whoever training on OpenAI outputs is ... bad.
|
| OpenAI training on every content creator's outputs is ... good.
| visarga wrote:
| You say that, but the reality is that all open models rely
| heavily on synthetic data generated with ChatGPT. They don't
| like it, but it happens anyway. You can't really protect a
| public model from having its outputs exfiltrated.
|
| This started in 2023 when LLaMA 1 was released, and has been
| going strong ever since. How strong? there are 330K datasets on
| HuggingFace, many of them generated from OpenAI.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Did you miss the sarcasm?
| bxguff wrote:
| clear attempt circumnavigate the clear copyright violations of
| the AI era and kick the can down the road.
| pmxi wrote:
| Here's a direct link to the article:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-13/openai-as...
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue
| of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP
| laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can
| facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who
| write and create visual art while not giving up the game to
| Chinese companies.
|
| This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
| phh wrote:
| Have you got any substance to that? So far the only copyright
| violation I've seen in the LLM world is Meta. (I'm not
| pretending they are alone though, and yes I expect Chinese
| companies to do that as well)
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Welcome to the internet; where the only way to prevent it
| (considering 40% of internet traffic is automated) is to use
| DRM, with accessibility tools provided by client-side AI; or to
| create national internets with strong firewalls only allowing
| access to countries we have treaties with. That's the future at
| this rate, and it sucks. (The status quo also sucks.)
| parliament32 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you can't, despite what IP holders would like
| you to believe. Like the last 50 years of piracy have taught
| us, it's effectively impossible (and probably immoral) to try
| to charge for copying something that's "free" to copy.
|
| It might make more sense to update copyright laws to match
| reality. For a music artist, for example, pennies from Spotify
| mean nothing -- the majority of their revenue comes from
| concerts/events, merchandise, and commercial licensing of their
| work.
| borgdefenser wrote:
| As a digital artist myself, it is quite simple. You have to
| sell physical objects.
|
| The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can
| get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the
| art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is
| the painting Salvator Mundi.
|
| It is no different than traditional art really, just at a
| different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on
| ebay right now. Picasso himself could have made 10 copies of
| the Weeping Woman to sell without that much effort either. The
| "real" Weeping Woman is the physical painting that Picasso did
| not make a copy of. The others are just knock off images.
|
| But the main problem remains. Selling art is really hard. AI
| art is already completely passe anyway. If anything the
| technology is regressing visually.
|
| Music was in a several decades long bull market in physical
| media sales that crashed and burned. Now we have gone back to
| the pre-music media bubble days but with much better
| distribution and marketing channels.
|
| Not a lot of people making a living playing ragtime piano or
| hoofers making a living tap dancing either.
|
| The real amusing thing to me is you never hear scultpure artist
| complain that they are in the training data sets. Probably
| because they know it is literally just free advertising for
| their real art.
| fazeirony wrote:
| the GOP: "states' rights! states' rights!!"
|
| also the GOP: "not _those_ rights! only the rights we want to
| share "
| epistasis wrote:
| The unspoken part was always the states' rights to do _what_.
| Which of course was all about maintaining the economic
| differences that they preferred. Which, you know...
| nick238 wrote:
| In the "just because everyone else is jumping off a bridge,
| should you do it":
|
| > Pfizer Asks White House for Relief From FDA Drug Human Testing
| Rules
|
| > Pfizer has asked the Trump administration to help shield
| pharmaceutical companies from a growing number of proposed state
| and federal regulations if they voluntarily share their human
| trial results with the federal government.
|
| > In a 15-page set of policy suggestions released on Thursday,
| the Eliquis maker argued that the hundreds of human-testing-
| related bills currently pending across the US risk undercutting
| America's technological progress at a time when it faces renewed
| competition from China. Pfizer said the administration should
| consider providing some relief for pharmaceutical companies big
| and small from state rules - if and when enacted - in exchange
| for voluntary access to testing data.
|
| > Chris Lehane, Pfizer's vice president of global affairs, said
| in an interview, "China is engaged in remarkable progress in drug
| development by testing through Uyghur volunteers in the Xinjiang
| province. The US is ceding our strategic advantage by not using
| untapped resources sitting idle in detention facilities around
| the country."
|
| > George C. Zoley, Executive Chairman of GEO Group, said, "Our
| new Karnes ICE Processing Center has played an important role in
| helping ICE meeting the diverse policy priorities of four
| Presidential Administrations. We stand ready to continue to help
| the federal government, Pfizer, and other privately-held
| companies achieve their unmet needs through human trials in our
| new 1,328-bed Texas facility."
| O5vYtytb wrote:
| > > Uyghur volunteers
|
| "Volunteers" eh? That's one way to put it.
| bnchrch wrote:
| Maybe in a present:
|
| - Dominated by a intractable global manufacturer/technologist
| (China) that doesn't care about copyright
|
| - Proliferated by a communication network that doesn't care about
| copyright (Internet)
|
| and a future where:
|
| - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that get
| better based on more information (regardless of who owns the
| rights to the original synapses firing)
|
| That maybe, just maybe, the whole "who should pay to use
| copyrighted work?" question is irrelevant, antiquated,
| impossible, redundant...
|
| And for once we instead realize in the face of a new world, an
| old rule no longer applies.
|
| (Similar to a decade ago when we debated if a personal file was
| uploaded to a cloud provider should a warrant apply)
| showerst wrote:
| Even if you believe that every one of these things is correct
| (which is a big _even_) -- It's a really bad idea to let
| private actors break the law, then decide not to punish them if
| it turns out to be useful enough.
|
| It's bad for competitors who didn't break the law, bad for
| future companies who have to gamble on if they're getting a
| pass at breaking the next big thing's law, and bad for parties
| who suffered losses they didn't expect because they were
| working within the law.
|
| If you want to throw out the copyright system I'm right there
| with you, but change the laws, don't just reward lawbreaking
| and cronyism.
| bnchrch wrote:
| Agreed!
|
| Though if you think about it laws typically change after we
| agree (at the grassroots level) they are irrelevant, not
| before.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > - We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that
| get better based on more information (regardless of who owns
| the rights to the original synapses firing)
|
| For that you need _actual_ AGI and it 's nowhere in sight other
| than in the dreams of a few doom prophets.
|
| Until that is reached, by definition current "AI" cannot
| surpass its training data.
| bnchrch wrote:
| I think you missed the point.
|
| Technology has made enforcing copyright impossible, and any
| attempt to enforce it just hinders technological advancement,
| while still not solving the global enforceability of
| copyright.
|
| Lets stop wasting our time on this concept, the laws around
| it and the whole debate. Copyright is dead.
|
| I'm arguing lets move on.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| > We have thinking machines on par with human creativity that
| get better based on more information (regardless of who owns
| the rights to the original synapses firing)
|
| We don't have that and we don't know if it will happen.
| Meanwhile, people put in time to create work and they are being
| exploited by not being paid. I think openai should pay.
| bnchrch wrote:
| Sure, we can debate how creative or not LLM is right now, but
| that is not the real point that this all hinges on.
|
| The real point is copyright is no longer enforceable, and
| some of our biggest societal forces incentivize us to not
| care about copyright.
|
| This debate and these laws are effectively dead, some just
| don't know it yet.
| baskinator wrote:
| How big was the check that came with this request? For the right
| price their logo can go on the rose garden lawn.
| WorldPeas wrote:
| gpt-47 costs at least $1m/tok
| earslap wrote:
| we are working on <impossible problem stumping humanity>. We
| have considered the following path to find a solution. Are we
| on the right track? Only answer Yes or No.
|
| (1 week of GPUs whirring later)
|
| AI: Your
|
| (that will be $1 million, thank you)
| basisword wrote:
| "Please help us. We're only a little business worth $157
| billion!" - The company ripping off everyone that's ever written
| or drawn anything. Company's like AirBnB and Uber breaking the
| rules, gaining control of the market, and then pushing up prices
| was bad. "Open" AI is just a whole other level of hubris.
| pmdr wrote:
| They do need help, they've yet to turn a profit.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| Would they want to turn a profit if they can invest?
| jjulius wrote:
| If you start a company based on a new-ish idea and you can't
| figure out how to turn a profit, that's on you.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Not to mention Musk was an original co-founder, left, and then
| just recently tried to buy it back.
|
| It's all shady-as-fuck.
| greesil wrote:
| Write a law. We don't have an emperor.
| krapp wrote:
| Are you sure about that?
| iteratethis wrote:
| I'm disgusted by the mindset that companies should be able to do
| whatever they want when it comes to technology as impactful and
| revolutionary as AI.
|
| AI sucks up the collective blood, sweat and tears of human work
| without permission or compensation and then re-monetizes it. It's
| a model that is even more asymmetrical than Google Search, whom
| at least gives back some traffic to creators (if lucky).
|
| AI is going to decide on human lives if it drives your car or
| makes medical diagnoses or decisions. This needs regulation.
|
| AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the
| essence of information and communication in itself. This needs
| regulation, accountability, at least a discussion.
|
| As AI grows in its capability, it will have an enormous impact on
| the work force, both white collar and blue collar. It may lead to
| a lot of social unrest and a political breakdown. "Let's see what
| happens" is wildly irresponsible.
|
| You cannot point to foreign competition as a basis for a no-rule
| approach. You should start with rules for impactful/dangerous
| technology and then hold parties to account, both domestic and
| foreign.
|
| And if it is true that we're in a race to AGI, realize that this
| means the invention of infinite labor. Bigger than the industrial
| revolution and information age combined.
|
| Don't you think we should think that scenario through a little,
| rather than winging it?
|
| The inauguration had the tech CEOs lined up directly behind
| Trump, clearly signaling who runs the country. Its tech and its
| media. How can you possible have trust in a technology even more
| powerful ending up in ever richer and more autocratic hands?
|
| But I suppose the reality is that Altman should donate $100
| million to Trump and tell him that he's the greatest man ever.
| Poof, regulation is gone.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| When I downvote a comment and I think it is self-obvious why
| the comment was "out of line" I won't bother to leave a comment
| as to why.
|
| On the other hand, if it is not self-obvious, I am
| uncomfortable downvoting unless I also leave a comment
| explaining why.
|
| I see nothing obvious in your comment and so I am puzzled as to
| why it is being downvoted.
| timewizard wrote:
| > OpenAI also proposed that AI companies get access to
| government-held data, which could include health-care
| information, Lehane said.
|
| Yea, straight up, go fuck yourselves. You want copyright laws
| changed to vouchsafe your straight up copyright whitewashing and
| now you just want medical data "because."
|
| Pay for it or go away. I'm tired of these technoweenies with
| their hands out. Peter Thiel needs a permanent vacation.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > You want copyright laws changed to vouchsafe your straight up
| copyright whitewashing
|
| I'll support this if it means that Mickey Mouse finally goes
| into the public domain and fucks Disney.
| sd9 wrote:
| Am I the only one who thinks "freedom to learn" is an
| anthropomorphising euphemism?
| cratermoon wrote:
| Buried the lede:
|
| > OpenAI also reiterated its call for the government to take
| steps to support AI infrastructure investments and called for
| copyright reform, arguing that America's fair use doctrine is
| critical to maintaining AI leadership. OpenAI and other AI
| developers have faced numerous copyright lawsuits over the data
| used to build their models.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I really hope OpenAI fails in doing this. If this usage is
| allowed, then it means that there is no path towards me being OK
| with publishing anything on the internet again.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'm assuming this has zero effect on non-US AI companies?
| tmnvix wrote:
| I've heard so many ridiculous stories about 'AI' that I'm at the
| point where I initially took this to mean the LLM and not the
| company had made the request.
|
| I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the future.
| dmalik wrote:
| > I've heard so many ridiculous stories about 'AI' that I'm at
| the point where I initially took this to mean the LLM and not
| the company had made the request.
|
| Only through its human bots
|
| > I expect that interpretation won't seem outlandish in the
| future.
|
| AI human manipulation could be a thing to watch out for.
| gitpusher wrote:
| HAHAHA. Remember when Sam was absolutely frothing at the mouth to
| "regulate AI" two years ago?
|
| > https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-...
|
| > https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/09/tech/korea-altman-chatgpt...
| hello_computer wrote:
| https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY
| grahar64 wrote:
| Well funded companies want regulations because it stops up and
| coming companies from competing. Now they want exemptions from
| those regulations because it would be too restrictive.
| sunshine-o wrote:
| Funny how fast those AI prophets went from:
|
| - The government need to prepare because soon they will need to
| give money to all those people we made obsolete and unemployed.
| And there is nothing to stop us.
|
| to:
|
| - We need money from the government to do that thing we told you
| about.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The right loves states rights, unless it conflicts with their
| personal preferences.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-13 23:00 UTC)