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
      61·
      11 months 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
          4·
          11 months 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
            3·
            11 months 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
              2·
              11 months 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.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      51·
      11 months ago

      On the one hand it should be a copyright violation but if it is then Google search, and all search engines are too.

      The only reason you can search for an article and get a hit is Google already read the page and copied it all to it’s internal servers where everything is indexed. So when you search, Google can look up the keywords and provide you a link.

      If there was a bug in Google’s search engine like OpenAI’s, you could craft a query that would leak Google’s indexed data.

      So all search engines are the same copyright violators as OpenAI. They take data from everyone and profit from it.(even if it is indirect or paying salaries)

      • yamanii@lemmy.world
        2·
        11 months ago

        The google search doesn’t summarize the article for me so I have no reason to ever visit the site though.

      • GarlicToast@programming.dev
        2·
        11 months ago

        Google is directing me to NYT, which make revenue for both parties. OpenAI does not direct me to the NYT, they try to replace them, this is a parasitic relation. If you hacked Google to pull the article from their cache, you will go to jail.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          If you hacked Google to pull the article from their cache, you will go to jail.

          Google has a “preview” button which shows the article without clicking the link.

          Is crafting a query to show an article “hacking”? Does that make the OpenAI researcher who got chatgpt to show an article a hacker?