And here I thought this shit would expose the blatant contradictions in IP law but it looks like it’s only creating the same cycle of vocal contrarians speaking out against a step in the right direction
I'm certain that at least SOME partially AI-generated content has made it into the pages of the NYT when some silver spoon journalist or columnist was running too close to a deadline
The problem isn't AI getting in so much as journalism getting out. NYT doesn't want people going to ChatGPT to read their headline news.
The worst people you know are fighting lol. Expanding the scope of IP law to make AI even worse. NYT & other papers will bundle articles in 'datasets' and sell them. Probably through an offshore IP holding company which will create a 'market' which companies can point to in transfer pricing. The 'ethical AI' rhetoric is used because it makes people think of job loss.
It’s going to quickly devolve into two billionaires fighting over who’s yacht is bigger if it hasn’t already
“There is nothing ‘transformative’ about using The Times’s content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it,” the Times said in its complaint. “Because the outputs of Defendants’ GenAI models compete with and closely mimic the inputs used to train them, copying Times works for that purpose is not fair use.”
You know, there's something ironic about these journalists feeling so threatened by a large language models. I thought the first law of the internet is that anything you upload stays there. A lot of this just seems like the Times wants a payday rather than looking to create regulation
contradictions in IP law
Also little pet peeve of mine, this article deals exclusively in copyright law. IP law is a misleading term that merges very different sections of law (mainly copyright, patent, and trademark) together. The reason "intellectual property" is used is the same reasons why distributors use the term "piracy" to demean people who share copyrighted works.
create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it
So they think a chatbot is a substitute for their news? They don't really think highly of themselves, do they?
steal audiences away from it
Stop right there, varmint! You've done robbed me of my rightly claimed property of people's eyeballs! Now why don't ya just lower dem dar gazes and back away all peaceful like?
Shit. So copyright, patent and trademark all fall under the nebulous umbrella of intellectual property? lmao it just gets worse doesn’t it
IP law is a misleading term that merges very different sections of law (mainly copyright, patent, and trademark) together
are they really all that different? they're all about excluding other people from making use of abstractions without negotiating payment with the person or corporate entity claiming ownership. i'm not a lawyer so feel free to school me. trademark i can see as being different because it's more about establishing identity, but copyrights and patents seem fairly similar to me.
i hope this is very expensive for both of them. sounds like the nyt is basically saying openai isn't allowed to read their articles because it means making a copy on their own servers? they have a point, a specific enough prompt that's related to a nyt article could conceivably spit out something very similar to the article itself because statistically that's what's most likely for the prompt and training set. and then you're really drilling down into the concept of ownership over combinations of words or numbers and i can imagine the legal situation getting pretty murky.
are they really all that different?
This article from the GNU Project is helpful in clarifying why, Here's the main gist though:
The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.it means making a copy on their own servers?
That's also murky since the dataset the OpenAI trains on is a trade secret, and most likely astronomically huge with not just NYTimes but other publications as well. Microsoft and OpenAI haven't responded, I doubt they didn't already have a plan beforehand (which was most likely what we've already seen, lobbying/compaigning against "AI" in order to become regulators of their own field). The hysteria and disinformation around machine learning and large language models is also part of OpenAI's strategy to muddy the waters.
:monarch-let-them-fight:
:godzilla
:yeasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss:
