undefined | Better HN

bloppe2y ago· 2 in thread

Sounds like you didn't read the article. Here's a better synoposis:

I read a NYT article and publish an exact copy of that article on my website: copyright infringement.

Train a model on NYT text and it outputs an exact copy of that text: also copyright infringement.

slyall2y ago

A small number of outputs of ChatGPT are close enough to training articles to be (probably) copyright infringement.

What does that mean?

Look up "substantial non-infringing use" and this little court case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....

Now spend a few million on lawyers and roll your dice.

1 more reply

cycrutchfieldOP2y ago

So presumably when they fix that issue (which, if the text matches exactly, should be trivially easy) then would you accept that as a sufficient remedy?

3 more replies

bad_user2y ago· 1 in thread

Fair use is intended for humans, much like copyright in general.

If you can't copyright AI-generated pieces, then why would fair use apply to LLMs?

mdekkers2y ago

> Fair use is intended for humans.

Is it? Can you quote relevant legislation or case law?

up2isomorphism2y ago

That's why there will be a legalization of the fair use. Just let your intellectual to be used for free training material is not sustainable.

Also remember copyright laws was not there in the first place.

zozbot2342y ago

Because it's not just summarizing the bare facts. It's a parrot.

0 comments

0 comments