News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl. Parent comment

Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by buildbot on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @08:13PM (#37155582)
No it's the death of the corporate content hosting web - the open web was never about making money with your blog post/irc chat/usenet group/etc content, at least in my opinion.

Let data be free! If someone wants to use it to make money, well, it's open, just like open source. It's still not okay to take open source work and claim it as your own, which is what copyright should be limited to. Stealing a photo or plagiarizing an essay is intrinsically different than just having a copy read by something, be it human or an mechanical process such as training a LLM.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by sundaeofshock on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @10:57PM (#37156618)
Maybe I don’t want my non-corporate art to be a part of some large corporation’s training data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by k_vi on Thursday August 17, 2023 @03:15AM (#37158285)
User-agent: GPTBot Disallow: /
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by prmoustache on Thursday August 17, 2023 @03:37AM (#37158430)
ATMO you shouldn't have to maintain knowledge of what kind of crawler bot exist and having to maintain deny list. It should be the opposite, only expressedly allowed content should be crawled by mainaining allow lists.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by wraptile on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:07AM (#37158599)
You can do the opposite since the inception of robots.txt: User-agent: * Disallow: / and then whitelist google bot and whatnot. Most of the web is already configured this way. Just check robots.txt of any major website, e.g. https://twitter.com/robots.txt
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by xnx on Thursday August 17, 2023 @12:34PM (#37164294)
The Allow: directive was an extension to robots.txt added later.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by jamilton on Thursday August 17, 2023 @03:35AM (#37158408)
That was my gut reaction too, but presumably unless it becomes regulated, at least some competitors to OpenAI won't respect any robots.txt and thus any open content might be training data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by gorbachev on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:05AM (#37158592)
User-Agent: <new technology category>Bot
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by andybak on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:02AM (#37158574)
Once again I have to point out that LLMs are not and will not be restricted to "large corporations". Even if initial training is prohibitively expensive, open base models already exist.

"corporate this" and "corporate that" are handy rhetorical flourishes but they distort the debate.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by twelve40 on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:07AM (#37158597)
if you want to give away your data for free, do it, but speak for yourself, not everyone is in position to be able to do it. Just like you can't force other people to give away their software (or anything else, really) for free if they choose to charge for it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by Riverheart on Thursday August 17, 2023 @09:40AM (#37161390)
[delayed]
[ Parent | on HN ]