I was worried that OpenAI, a 1.2 trillion dollar company, would be the only party to this lawsuit that was 'bad'.
Thankfully, thanks to your detective work, we have ourselves a lawyer that is also 'bad', a rare thing indeed.
Readers may be wondering if 'authors' are also bad. That's silly, they don't matter at all. This is what makes stealing from them legal (for a small fine) and profitable.
Thank God, a response which addresses none of the content of the parent post which is now flagged for pointing out current facts of the case, along with anything else in the thread which doesn't align with "AI BAD".
'Fallen far' is so so rich, when you are the misinfo peddler here.
The article you linked is irrelevant because it is about a DIFFERENT CASE.
_Authors Guild v. OpenAI_
is NOT
_The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. et al._
The gall of you to act indignant about 'facts of the case'.
Even if you weren't lazy or illiterate; Mike isn't a neutral party either.
> "Of course, my biases are known: I’m quite convinced that training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, and I find the argument that slop books “dilute” non-slop books to be beyond nonsensical."
Even if you agree with Mike, OpenAI thought they could replace/dilute authors, and workers generally, as disclosed by their internal discussions.
Even if you agree with Mike that training, generally, is fair use, they did not pay for the torrented works they trained their models on, which is still illegal! This is why they shifted to buying and shredding books after they lost other lawsuits.
> 'AI bad'
Bay Area self-styled demi-gods bad, actually. Their products, like always, are incidental to their rapaciousness and their impunity from laws.
They did not fabricate research or get caught burying their involvement in fabrication. That's not what your link says.
They are alleged to have funded research which one of their expert witnesses relied on. They may have other expert witnesses and their expert witness may rely on other research. And their funding of such research can also be above-board, after all it is not completely and totally different from paying an expert witness for his/her testimony. He may have many sources of funding apart from them as well.
Also all this behavior is alleged. It has not been proven and the judge hasn't ruled on this motion from OAI et. al. The judge may deny the motion still, making the accusations inconsequential
Betelbuddy · · focus · HN ↗
luma · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
lkey · · focus · HN ↗
I was worried that OpenAI, a 1.2 trillion dollar company, would be the only party to this lawsuit that was 'bad'. Thankfully, thanks to your detective work, we have ourselves a lawyer that is also 'bad', a rare thing indeed.
Readers may be wondering if 'authors' are also bad. That's silly, they don't matter at all. This is what makes stealing from them legal (for a small fine) and profitable.
luma · · focus · HN ↗
HN has fallen far.
lkey · · focus · HN ↗
The article you linked is irrelevant because it is about a DIFFERENT CASE.
_Authors Guild v. OpenAI_ is NOT _The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. et al._
The gall of you to act indignant about 'facts of the case'.
Even if you weren't lazy or illiterate; Mike isn't a neutral party either.
> "Of course, my biases are known: I’m quite convinced that training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, and I find the argument that slop books “dilute” non-slop books to be beyond nonsensical."
Even if you agree with Mike, OpenAI thought they could replace/dilute authors, and workers generally, as disclosed by their internal discussions.
Even if you agree with Mike that training, generally, is fair use, they did not pay for the torrented works they trained their models on, which is still illegal! This is why they shifted to buying and shredding books after they lost other lawsuits.
> 'AI bad'
Bay Area self-styled demi-gods bad, actually. Their products, like always, are incidental to their rapaciousness and their impunity from laws.
Craighead · · focus · HN ↗
aprilthird2021 · · focus · HN ↗
They are alleged to have funded research which one of their expert witnesses relied on. They may have other expert witnesses and their expert witness may rely on other research. And their funding of such research can also be above-board, after all it is not completely and totally different from paying an expert witness for his/her testimony. He may have many sources of funding apart from them as well.
Also all this behavior is alleged. It has not been proven and the judge hasn't ruled on this motion from OAI et. al. The judge may deny the motion still, making the accusations inconsequential
windexh8er · · focus · HN ↗