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

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by mdorazio on Sunday January 07, 2024 @10:15AM (#38901861)

> If I learn to write news articles by reading the NYT, I’m not then able to duplicate myself infinitely and fill every role at every news publisher. I am but one human, producing one human’s output and consuming one human’s space within whatever pursuit I undertake. Critically, I still leave room for others to do the same thing.

This is a luddite argument that can equally apply to any automation. A robotic arm can be trained to do the same thing a human line worker does, but the robotic arm can be copied infinitely and work 24/7 leaving zero room for other humans to do the same thing. Should we ban robotic arms?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by fullofideas on Sunday January 07, 2024 @11:32AM (#38902548)

Like I say to my toddler, there is no need for rudeness to make a point.

Nowhere did the poster say that is “sufficient” reason to ban ai. They were clarifying how software is different from humans and only that. You need to go up a couple of comments and combine this explanation with the other part of copyright infringement concerns to see why the “whole” thing is concerning for the news industry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by timeon on Sunday January 07, 2024 @01:01PM (#38903432)

> This is a luddite argument

And that is empty statement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso... by coeneedell on Sunday January 07, 2024 @01:17PM (#38903604)

We have already banned robotic arms in this case. It’s illegal to make a robot that mass manufactures someone else’s IP. It’s considered copyright infringement and is a well trodden law, the introduction of a machine in the middle doesn’t magically launder the copyright infringement.

[ Parent | on HN ]