undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrepeekad1y ago0 comments

> done with the intent to not pay the original authors

no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” and the legal precedent for using copyrighted works for the purpose of training is clear with the NYT case against open AI

It’s why things like the recent deal with Reddit to train on their data (which Reddit owns and users give up when using the platform) are becoming so important, same with Twitter/X

0 comments

kaoD1y ago

> no one building this software wants to “steal from creators”

> It’s why things like the recent deal[s ...] are becoming so important

Sorry but I don't follow. Is it one or the other?

If they didn't want to steal from the original authors, why do they not-steal Reddit now? What happens with the smaller creators that are not Reddit? When is OpenAI meeting with me to discuss compensation?

To me your post felt something like "I'm not robbing you, Small State Without Defense that I just invaded, I just want to have your petroleum, but I'm paying Big State for theirs cause they can kick my ass".

Aren't the recent deals actually implying that everything so far has actually been done with the intent of not compensating their source data creators? If that was not the case, they wouldn't need any deals now, they'd just continue happily doing whatever they've been doing which is oh so clearly lawful.

What did I miss?

repeekadOP1y ago

The law is slow and is always playing catch up in terms of prosecution, it’s not clear today because this kind of copyright has never been an issue before. Usually it’s just outright stealing content that was protected, no one ever imagined “training” to be a protected use case, humans “train” on copyrighted works all the time, ideally copyrighted works they purchased for said purpose… the same will start to apply for AI, you have to have rights to the data for that purpose, hence these deals getting made. In the meantime it’s ask for forgiveness not permission, and companies like Google (less openAI) are ready to go with data governance that lets them remove copyright requested data and keep the rest of the model working fine

Let’s also be clear that making deals with Reddit isn’t stealing from creators, it’s not a platform where you own what you type in, same on here this is all public domain with no assumed rights to the text. If you write a book and openAI trains on it and starts telling it to kids at bed time, you 100% will have a legal claim in the future, but the companies already have protections in place to prevent exactly that. For example if you own your website you can request the data not be crawled, but ultimately if your text is publicly available anyone is allowed to read it, and the question it is anyone allowed to train AI on it is an open question that companies are trying to get ahead on.

kaoD1y ago

That seems even worse: they had intent to steal and now they're trying to make sure it is properly legislated so nobody else can do it, thus reducing competition.

GPT can't get retroactively untrained on stolen data.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kaoD1y ago

> no one building this software wants to “steal from creators”

> It’s why things like the recent deal[s ...] are becoming so important

Sorry but I don't follow. Is it one or the other?

What did I miss?

repeekadOP1y ago

kaoD1y ago

That seems even worse: they had intent to steal and now they're trying to make sure it is properly legislated so nobody else can do it, thus reducing competition.

GPT can't get retroactively untrained on stolen data.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse