The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microsoft and OpenAI

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by mongol on Sunday January 07, 2024 @09:29AM (#38901448)

This is not what using copyrighted works for AI is about. A human is not software, when you read an article it is not "copied" into your brain.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by jncfhnb on Sunday January 07, 2024 @09:33AM (#38901489)

Right because copyrighted works has nothing to do with ai. So it’s all irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by pmarreck on Sunday January 07, 2024 @09:35AM (#38901517)

> when you read an article it is not "copied" into your brain.

1) You cannot prove that this does not happen in some form. The fact that manual electrical stimulation of the cortex triggers random memories is sort of the proof that you are wrong here; if there wasn't some kind of "copy, transformed somehow into a 3D space we call the brain" in there, then that localized stimulation wouldn't trigger a particular memory at all.

2) And yet, this is not true of AI's either. Knowledge encoded into either real neurons or a simulation of them may be similar both in how it's not a "literal copy" but a kind of copy nevertheless.

If we are only concerned with "literal" or "verbatim" copies, then there is no case here.

[ Parent | on HN ]