News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by lewhoo on Thursday August 17, 2023 @07:58AM (#37160271)
(IANAL) I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think so. Since LLM is not a person in the legal term it really doesn't matter what the difference is. There may be virtually no difference but I imagine the discussion would still be academic. For example: animals aren't granted rights just because they are in some instances similar or in other instances even identical to humans. Primates aren't allowed to walk everywhere humans can just because they posses the ability to walk on two legs.

In my view the biggest issue to raise is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). The most spectacular example of damage would be stackoverflow, thought stackoverflow content is not copyrighted. I think there is little doubt that LLM's drive attention from original sources. That might be deemed damaging, especially in the long run.

Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by 8note on Thursday August 17, 2023 @03:45PM (#37166956)
Stack overflow content is certainly copyrighted, but the copyright is owned by the questioners and answerers, not stack overflow.

There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners.

Re:New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as c... by lewhoo on Thursday August 17, 2023 @04:16PM (#37167333)
There's no damage to the potential market or value of the works because they're given away for free by their owners.

There may be, because technically copy/pasting SO code is governed by CC BY-SA 4.0 license which requires attribution and things aren't so obvious especially for commercial purpose.