Comment by wkat4242
3 months ago
If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this.
I'm glad the NYT is fighting them. They've infringed the rights of almost every news outlet but someone has to bring this case.
They infringed nothing. Two judges have already ruled that training on copyrighted data is fair use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr...
But displaying regurgitations of very similar content may not be fair use. Fair use is a very delicate affair. One factor is whether the modified work poses as a market replacement for the original work.
The issue is, in part, a concern that ChatGPT responses are often just simple derivations of the original content in ways that wouldn’t be considered fair use.
Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.
No I wouldn't since this is discovery. Maybe there's something you're missing here.
6 replies →
Two idiot judges.
Agreed
[flagged]
People pretending to own Data that should belong to the commons is the larger issue.
Exactly. And the OpenAI corporates speak acting like they give a shit about our best interests. Give me a break, Sam Altman. How stupid do you think everyone is?
They have proven that they are the most untrustworthy company on the planet
And this isn't AI fear speaking. This is me raging at Sam Altman for spreading so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to get investments. The rest of us have to suffer for the last two years, worrying about losing our jobs, only to find out the AGI lie is complete bullsh*t.
To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind. This whole thing is akin to when Apple was refusing to unlock phones for the FBI. Of course, Apple profits by having people think that they take privacy seriously, and they demonstrate it by protecting users’ privacy. Same thing here; OpenAI needs chats to have some expectation of privacy, especially because a large use case of AI is personal advice on things. So they are fighting to make sure it's true.
> To me, no company has the customers’ best interests in mind.
Lavabit opted to stop operating rather than give the FBI access to client emails.
https://archive.ph/20200915083857/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Both OpenAI and NYT are bad. I don't know about NYT's privacy policy, because that's not really the industry they're in, but they did admit to fabricating a story that led to a now 2-year-long war, so.
5 replies →
You got downvoted for this? That many people are doing 'Leave Sam Altman alone!'? kinda wild
It's weird. It went up and down and up and down. Controversial POV. But thanks for the support. Sam Altman's just too dishonest. It's been said time and time again by so many people, by Paul Graham, Ilya Sutskeve, everybody's telling everybody he's dishonest. When are we going to wake up and get this guy out of there?
[flagged]
> They should sell their stuff by mail if they hate open culture so much.
Does open culture mean free? Are you willing to work for free? It is perfectly OK to sell goods in exchange for money, which is what NYT is doing.
I dont know why you're so upset with it. You cant walk into Apple Store and except to walk away with a free iPhone. Then why are you expecting to "walk" into nytimes' website and walk away with free article?
The problem isn't that a news site is monetizing with a paywall. Totally fine, monetize how you want!
The problem is that prominent news orgs have lobbied governments all over the world to threaten google, apple, etc. for preferential treatment so these paywalled articles get prominent placement in various feeds and carousels and recommendation algos.
As a small publisher you'll never get this same preferential treatment if you throw up a paywall.
Creating the bizarre situation where big tech platforms feel they have to recommend paywalled articles from NYT/Bloomberg/etc, catfishing users right into a paywall when they click on headlines. This is essentially spam.
Open means open. Plenty of people make money in the open culture in way less obnoxious ways than NYT. What NYT does is crapping at the place where I am, but building a wall and charging for passage to a place that does stink little bit less. I don't mind them having such place, or even charging for access. What I mind is making mine actively worse. Do whatever you want and charge however much you want. But for the love of God don't advertise in my face using free space that I inhabit. My attention costs way more than your content. Don't be surprised that when you do I will disregard completely your wishful thinking about payment.
What I need is one checkbox in Google ecosystem (and/or my browser) that says "Never show links to paywalled content". Give me that and all my beef with NYT and similar garbage factories is gone in a blink of an eye.
2 replies →
everyone like me that won't ever pay them a cent.
Yeah, how terrible that you should be expected to spend /eleven minutes/ of the average U.S. tech worker's salary for a month of information. Perish the thought.
They should sell their stuff by mail
You're in luck! You can subscribe to the New York Times by mail, just like you want.
At this point I would pay just as much to not see a single link to NYT content in my life. I can't pay for that? Well, that's my point.
5 replies →