AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[trappedslider]

Well now you're chance to maybe have an impact. the commerce dept is soliciting comments about regulating open models.

NTIA Solicits Comments on Open-Weight AI Models

Today, the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) launched a Request for Comment on the risks, benefits and potential policy related to advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models with widely available model weights – the core component of AI...

www.commerce.gov

Direct link to where you can comment: Regulations.gov

 

[trappedslider]

Microsoft invokes VCRs in motion to dismiss The New York Times’ AI lawsuit

Copyright lawsuits could redirect the future of generative AI.

www.theverge.com

 

[Ryujin]

Microsoft invokes VCRs in motion to dismiss The New York Times’ AI lawsuit

Copyright lawsuits could redirect the future of generative AI.

www.theverge.com

If The Times can show their content was not just recorded, but disseminated, then the VCR model goes out the window. You could record, but not redistribute/sell.

 

[trappedslider]

If The Times can show their content was not just recorded, but disseminated, then the VCR model goes out the window. You could record, but now redistribute/sell.

why can NYT earn money from summarizing the work of other journalists (including direct block quotes) from other publications and it is an infringement if OpenAi does it?

OpenAI’s Motion To Dismiss Highlights Just How Weak NYT’s Copyright Case Truly Is

A few weeks ago, Prof. James Grimmelmann and (former Techdirt) journalist Tim Lee wrote a piece for Ars Technica, stating why the NY Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI. It’s no se…

www.techdirt.com

 

[Scribe]

why can NYT earn money from summarizing the work of other journalists (including direct block quotes) from other publications and it is an infringement if OpenAi does it?

Because it's not a summary, it's often outright duplication, generated on the fly because they stole from everyone, programmatically.

 

[Ryujin]

why can NYT earn money from summarizing the work of other journalists (including direct block quotes) from other publications and it is an infringement if OpenAi does it?

OpenAI’s Motion To Dismiss Highlights Just How Weak NYT’s Copyright Case Truly Is

A few weeks ago, Prof. James Grimmelmann and (former Techdirt) journalist Tim Lee wrote a piece for Ars Technica, stating why the NY Times might win its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI. It’s no se…

www.techdirt.com

Exception for purposes of reporting news, giving credit to the source, et alii.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Because it's not a summary, it's often outright duplication, generated on the fly because they stole from everyone, programmatically.

I'd like to try it to see it myself, as in my limited experience the output seemed quite original. The D&D stat for a CR 15 hybrid of a bear, scorpion and mosquito I needed didn't feel lifted from someone's else (though I'd really like to meet another who actually had featured this hybrid in his campaign). But of course, you said it "often" happens so it's totally possible that my experience with AI was an outlier.

Can you provide me with a prompt to use to replicate an exact article from the NYT? I have a subscription to Chat-GPT 4 so I can test it and share the results. Edit: I could also do the same test with Mistral Large, if there is any interest, to see if it's repeatable across AIs or just specific to OpenAI's.

 

[trappedslider]

Exception for purposes of reporting news, giving credit to the source, et alii.

that was part of OpenAI's motion to dismiss

To support its narrative, the Times claims OpenAI’s tools can “closely summarize[]” the facts it reports in its pages and “mimic[] its expressive style.” Compl. ¶ 4. But the law does not prohibit reusing facts or styles. If it did, the Times would owe countless billions to other journalists who “invest[] [] enormous amount of time, money, expertise, and talent” in reporting stories, Compl. ¶ 32, only to have the Times summarize them in its pages

Regardless, this “output” theory fails because the outputs alleged in the Complaint are not wholesale copies of entire Times articles. They are, at best, reproductions of excerpts of those articles, some of which are little more than collections of scattered sentences. Supra 12. If the absence of CMI from such excerpts constituted a “removal” of that CMI, then DMCA liability would attach to any journalist who used a block quote in a book review without also including extensive information about the book’s publisher, terms and conditions, and original copyright notice. See supra note 22 (example of the Times including 200-word block quote in book review).

Even setting that aside, the Times’s output-based CMI claim fails for the independent reason that there was no CMI to remove from the relevant text. The Exhibit J outputs, for example, feature text from the middle of articles. Ex. J. at 2–126. As shown in the exhibit, the “Actual text from NYTimes” contains no information that could qualify as CMI. See, e.g., id. at 3; 17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) (defining CMI). So too for the ChatGPT outputs featured in the Complaint, which request the “first [and subsequent] paragraph” from Times articles. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 104, 106, 118, 121. None of those “paragraphs” contains any CMI that OpenAI could have “removed.”

They also point out that the person NYT hired had to bend over backwards and exploit a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) to get it do do what they wanted it to do.

The allegations in the Times’s Complaint do not meet its famously rigorous journalistic standards. The truth, which will come out in the course of this case, is that the Times paid someone to hack OpenAI’s products. It took them tens of thousands of attempts to generate the highly anomalous results that make up Exhibit J to the Complaint. They were able to do so only by targeting and exploiting a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) by using deceptive prompts that blatantly violate OpenAI’s terms of use. And even then, they had to feed the tool portions of the very articles they sought to elicit verbatim passages of, virtually all of which already appear on multiple public websites. Normal people do not use OpenAI’s products in this way.

Which is why I'd love to see discovery on the other cases, to see what prompts (what they included and excluded) and how many times they ran it.

But as has been pointed out in the case of copy right law, it's also ruled on vibes and the actual law.

 

[Ryujin]

that was part of OpenAI's motion to dismiss

They also point out that the person NYT hired had to bend over backwards and exploit a bug (which OpenAI has committed to addressing) to get it do do what they wanted it to do.

Which is why I'd love to see discovery on the other cases, to see what prompts (what they included and excluded) and how many times they ran it.

But as has been pointed out in the case of copy right law, it's also ruled on vibes and the actual law.

Eventually it will all come out. The question to be answered is whether the dissemination and use of Generative AI is to the net public benefit which is at the heart of the exception granted news agencies, and will be necessary for AI to have the same exception granted. I'm dubious on that. It's also one of the reasons that I don't put this issue in the same category as wagon wheel makers or ice delivery men.

 

[Scribe]

Can you provide me with a prompt to use to replicate an exact article from the NYT? I have a subscription to Chat-GPT 4 so I can test it and share the results. Edit: I could also do the same test with Mistral Large, if there is any interest, to see if it's repeatable across AIs or just specific to OpenAI's.

No, it was done in a different thread by someone else, I'm not sure what the prompt was.

I don't play with ChatGPT, just Dall-E to see how far we can take concept generation without paying anyone.

(Answer: Very far.)