Millions of articles from The New York Times were used to train chatbots that now compete with it, the lawsuit said.

Millions of articles from The New York Times were used to train chatbots that now compete with it, the lawsuit said.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
      0·
      2 years ago

      I have to say it’s fun to watch. I’m bringing this up with my boss when he’s back because all fortune 500 companies are big on both products right now and from a technology perspective and a business edge with their competitors it makes sense.

      For me I care more from a philosophical and moral perspective and I’m curious with our “AI Steering Committee” how seriously they’re taking into account the actions of these companies. Microsoft is one thing as they’re so embedded but OpenAI? How long does a company wanting to be perceived as “good” going to continue using ChatGPT?

      I don’t have answers. Genuinely curious.

        • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
          0·
          2 years ago

          If we continue to run into issues with AI and copywrite laws maybe copywrite laws are the issue. Maybe our broken system is keeping us held back.

          • GarlicToast@programming.dev
            0·
            2 years ago

            I’m sure that Wine decelopers would be thrilled to be allowed to use leaked Windows code. I have a funny feeling that Microsoft may object.

            • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
              0·
              2 years ago

              Those with the power want to keep the power. The pattern is consistent be it Microsoft, Paramount or John Grisham.

              Now the question is, how do we abolish antiquated copywrite laws while also ensuring people are adequately compensated for what they create?

              Off the top, Microsoft and Paramount don’t create. They’re not people. They shouldn’t be in the conversation and they have no rights (yes I know not reality but I believe this). John Grisham has a leg to stand on.

              I don’t know what the solution is. I merely know the current solutions we have in place don’t work but we continue to use them because those in power are benefitting from it.

  • spaduf@slrpnk.net
    0·
    2 years ago

    The existing industry that’s popped up around LLMs has conveniently ignored that what these models are doing may have been illegal the whole time and a lot of the experts knew it. This is why it’s so important for folks to realize that the industry is not just thin wrappers around ChatGPT (and that interesting applications of this technology are largely being pushed out by the lowest hanging fruit). If this is ruled as not fair use then the whole industry will basically disappear overnight and we’ll have to rebuild it from scratch either with a new business model that pays authors or as open source/crowd sourced models (probably both). All that said we’re almost certainly better off. Open AI may have kicked off the most recent “gold rush” but their methods have been terrible for both the industry at large and for further development of the tech.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.net
        0·
        2 years ago

        This is a fair point with regards to a handful of companies (Microsoft, Google, Meta) but there will still be an immediate loss in quality as they go back to basics on their data pipelines. Given how long they’ve spent playing catch up in this space, I suspect progress will be pretty slow from there

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      It always should have had the right business model where they paid for this access for AI training. They knew it was wrong but in their rush to be known they decided it was better to take without asking and then ask for forgiveness later. Regardless what happens now, people have already made a name for themselves swindling the likes of Microsoft out of it and will have long well-paying careers from it.