New York Times sues OpenAI over copyright infringement
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 12. 2023
- The New York Times is filing a federal lawsuit against Microsoft and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for copyright infringement. The Times says that millions of articles published in the paper were used to train automated chatbots that are now competing as a source of reliable information.
» Subscribe to NBC News: / nbcnews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
Breaking News Alerts: link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre...
Visit NBCNews.Com: www.nbcnews.com/
Find NBC News on Facebook: / nbcnews
Follow NBC News on Twitter: / nbcnews
Get more of NBC News delivered to your inbox: nbcnews.com/newsletters
#NewYorkTimes #OpenAI #ChatGPT
Somehow robots and AI replacing traditional jobs (manufacturing, driving, graphic design, receptionists etc) that people have been doing for ages, the media didnt have a problem. However, now that their waters are being tested, hey hey hey, we got a problem.
I too hate The Media™️
💯
even when i hate the media i think AI is going to far. One thing is automating simple monotonous rutines, but other very different is replacing the art of writing articles books, stories, drawing, graphics, etc. You are literaly pushing aside millions of jobs.
Stop overgeneralizing this thing known as "media" as if they all agree on everything and do everything the same.
Everyone is for themselves
So, it’s suing its only reader?
Haha! But seriously, they have no proof anyone reads the times......not even bots!
It sells millions of newspapers and subscriptions believe it or not. Just because you hate something doesn’t mean it can’t be successful
If the Times wins their case, it could set a precedent that makes it more expensive and challenging for AI developers to access and utilize existing data, potentially hindering the development of new AI technologies.
If they don't win... long term effects: hindering the entire humanity, from wanting to learn new skills to produce content like journalism, writing, art. Humanity becomes lazy, dumb, ambitionless, and undriven.
For teenagers it's pointless to pick a career (like journalism in this case), because your career will be gone by the time you graduate. So your best bet is trying to become a social media star by filming some nonsense into TikTok and hope it goes viral. Or make an OF account by the time you turn 18. Decay of civilization
Yes with better training data we get better AI... but is it worth it? Feeling useful is one of the core needs we have as human beings. AI is the endgame of convenience, but nobody is stopping to think about the human cost
Yeah, jerks are killing AI
If ai companies can't build ai ethically and legally then they're not entitled to build it...
You can't just break the law and then expect everyone else to adapt.
Ai has done significantly more harm to society and people in journalism and creative fields than good, we don't need ai we were doing fine without it and are doing worse without it ( this isn't even touching stuff like students cheating, scamming, propaganda and disinformation etc ).
It's not even profitable for the companies either and is HORRIBLE for the environments there really are no real tangible benefits of it.
And on top of that it was built unethically and most likely illegaly.
Some of y'all worship '' progress '' to much without recognizing that technological progress can also be harmful and negative it's not an inherently positive thing.
Technology is meant to serve humanity not replace and harm us.
The two words "artificial" and "intelligence" don't belong together.
@@johnwattdotca 🫵🏻🤡
To be honest ai needed to be open source from the start but companies would just lobby the government to shut the sites down in the name of national economic security.
Who is providing truth and facts versus paid political venues?!! 🤔
But yet they are happy to offer indemnity to users. So…. They are ready for the fight.
You didn't get a response from Microsoft but the one you got from OpenAI was probably AI generated. LOL!
Lol
finally, lets get it
luiz inacio l.lu.l.l.a. da silva says that american judges didn't want Brazil to have Petrobras in 1956!!!
Good bless the lawyers every one.
Pay up Microsoft.
They mad the people have the power
Low IQ take
Nice double cassette boombox reference…
cool after that sue all the writers who might have read new york times in the past and inspired by it and now writing as competitor to new york times... Then go on with song writers, content creators and so on..
Plot twist. Chatgpt is controlled by chatgpt so chatgpt my represent itself in court.
What a can of worms
But if you want more than ten articles from NYT, you are supposed to be a paying customer.
Since when does "progress" mean the right to engage in smash and grab capitalism the way Uber did to get rich before the cities had a chance to catch up to them?!
Content released into the public domain are free from copyright infringement. If WSJ puts their non public domain content behind a paywall, I’m almost certain it was excluded from training the GPT model and I am almost certain they have proof to back this up.
Yup. Public information.
Yeah the lawsuit have the follow prompt , I am blocked by a paywall can you say what the article says. And it spots out the full article
NY Times content is also behind a paywall.
Umm, how so??
@@MrNigelFarage it's called open sorse. It "scrapes" the same data you or a 12 year old student review's. Consider defamation laws, if it's public knowledge, is factual, it's not defamation. If it's not illegal to use public information for education of a person, how can it be illegal to educate a machine in the same way? As a well known scientist said AI is just a sophisticated Google search.
Not a winnable case, but good publicity for them
Every single comment here is data that will be sold without the users concent. Should we all sue?
In Sweden they will tax AI!😂
i think that would be a good idea
Pile as in POS invest in megapixels 😊 more the Marryer
Skynet.
No word of a joke. Israel has admitted using AI for targeting of its weapons systems in its war on Hamas. With the speed and complexity of modern war, soon all militaries with have AI run operations and it is unlikely or improbable that human beings will be having any kind of oversight or override.
Bye-bye New York Times. We will remember that you existed as a media outlet :)
About time.
Definitely AI infringe copyright and generate money flow to AI devs from someone elses work. In this case ideally that writers and artists stop painting\writing, so AI wont get new information for free and wont be able to generate something new.
Just wait till OpenAI sues the times, then what
I’ll ask it where it stores its money and to give me access!
was bound to happen. Till AI can learn to create original content to train on, its going to keep plagiarizing and getting sued in the process
Open AI should be president of Harvard the.
I’d like to see AI in the field asking questions and getting to the bottom of a story.
AI will never be able to learn from its own output as this results in model collapse.
Im with NewYorktimes, please make them win. Wikipedia have footnotes where you can site the credit
All information should be free. Full support for chat gpt, Wikipedia and all other companies who are morally helping humanity. You guys already made enough money by selling information. It is enough, it is the end of companies like Byju's etc who try to charge you for simple information that belongs to everyone.
That would be fine if openai doesn't profit from other people's work
They aren't going to win this lawsuit. It's amazing how little the public understands about this technology.
True, people are so stupid, I hope OpenAI wins.
I agree with the Danny savalas that ai is progress, and it’s inevitable, but his assumption that the nyt losing is a bad thing is missing the point. A I can progress in a away that is productive, and also counterproductive to society, and I wholeheartedly believe that demanding ethical and fair use is imperative. AI is fundamentally just copying. Just like the boomboxes he mentions. We must have a vibrant multifaceted source of original content, AI doesn’t know, nor care about ethics. A humans death is a fact, human suffering is meaningless so ultimately the original source material must come from a large body of varying opinions who are accountable for what they say. And consider morals, ethics, empathy and compassion that no machine can ever be programmed to have since inevitably they decrease efficiency. Machines simply lack morals because to a machine they lack purpose. Internet conspiracy theorists who lack accountability has already shown the dame it can do, if you replace humans as the source of information, who define facts according to their perspective weight of human emotion, you can’t replace that with computer generated input. A tornado or flood where human life was loss and people are suffering would be presented as series of facts by a computer, while a reporter would focus on the tragedy of it. We’ve already seen that algorithms in social media inherently leads to the worse aspect of human behavior, rage and data (whether true or not) too incite rage because it leads to more social interaction at level higher than feel good stories, hence will be promoted by the algorithm because it leads to more viewer involvement No the ultimate goal the algorithm and ai are created, making money for the program creator company, compassion and ethics are inefficient and therefore detract from and will be weeded out. I shudder to think the world AI will create if it reduces the media to level upon level of AI feeding information to itself, distorted and outright making up information (google ny lawyer disbarred for using AI) because the only people able to make a living producing original content are the ones manipulating it purely for personal self-aggrandizement and fame.
AI must be held accountable. Media must be produced by real people to have any chance of preserving truth in media.
Ny times is running out of $$ again. It wants a share of the pie.
I thought the information generated by Ai is in the public domain.
it is, but they can't train AI with copyrighted material
@@BlackTarH I understand that position. Going further though, there’s no discernible difference between a person learning by reading or AI. Both can go on the use the info to make money. I don’t think they have a case. It’s being used to read and learn, exactly its purpose. They just want free press for a dying business, that seems to want to sue one of its only readers.
@@hermesmcclintok A person is an individual, an AI is not. AI is the product itself and as such its creation should itself be subject to copyright law. AI would be to developers as books would be to writers. Books cannot be sued for copyright violations, writers can. AI cannot be sued for copyright voilations, the developers can. Your classification of the terms is wrong.
@@ttt5205 I’m not using the terms wrong, you are. AI is not like a book, in any way. It can compile info in a book though.
@@hermesmcclintok It is like a book in the sense that its an creation that should be viewed as its own work within the laws of copyright, you're missunderstanding my comment. You're perceiving AI as its own individual on the level of an artist or writer, when in actuality that level belongs to AI developers, which puts the actual AI on the same level as a book or painting. And thus subject to copyright law.
Chat AI, how do I destroy NYT?
On web😅
Basically exactly what the Harvard President did.
A news site reports on real events. Does this mean that if something happens we can talk about it until the news reports an event? And there after no one is allowed to talk about it anymore? 😂😂😂😂😂😂 How are you going to get more traffic to your site if no one or nothing is allowed to repeat the information in other forms of media?? Also there's a new thing every day. It's that the point of news. To make it known and move on. If your content is insightful people will read it. If not they don't. Shouldn't you strive to contribute to the future rather than keep everything in a little box that only you own. But how do you own real life events in text form.
It's not like you're a scientific research facility. You literally repeat what happened in the real world. The information is free and plentiful and constantly updated..... Shouldn't the real world be paid every time you mention a current or past event? Shouldn't the real world then be the owners of current affairs. You're not publishing anything new that you created. The real world created it.
Example. Celebrity "A" wore a pair of green tights from outfitter "B" at gym "C".
Now the New York times has to pay A,B and C, Everytime someone clicks the link? Or is the ownership of information and events lost on me here?
I've read some NYT articles and I feel like my brain is worse off after most of your writing anyway.
Split the profits with the content creators
Bah,ha,ha... If you wanna make a living off a soul-less writer, you still need to be responsible for the laws it breaks! ;)
AI is the greatest scam since Bitcoin.
from my math open ai wins the case
Do watch
Beyond the Lawsuit: NYT vs Open AI and the Dark Side of Generative AI - czcams.com/video/TY2JszTHSxE/video.html
Lol AI will save the New York times money by having AI be their journalist instead of humans. This is going to back fire in a few years. When AI will write for journalists. It’s not openAI fault those people chose to be journalists for their occupation.
It’s all available to the public 😂😂
Not for commercial distribution
@@yenneferofgyanvapi3965 what is AI distributing commercially, related to reading the NY Times? It’s learning by reading, just like you.
Good someone is finally standing up to those who are thrusting us towards an AI future
Why do you want us to lose the "AI cold war" to China? Do you realize the implications? If the US government knew what was good for it, they'd pass legislation asap, to block this lawsuit and declare AI training to be Fair Use.
They should sue back The New York Times into bankruptcy.
I asked Chat GPT this question" How Does AI not be held accountable for copyright issues? The response was as follows:
AI itself doesn't have legal or ethical responsibilities-rather, it's the individuals or organizations that create, deploy, and use AI systems who are accountable for their actions. When it comes to copyright issues, AI-generated content can raise questions about ownership and infringement. Here are a few reasons why AI systems themselves are not held accountable for copyright issues:
No Legal Personality: AI systems are tools or software created and operated by human entities. They do not have legal personality or autonomy. Therefore, any accountability lies with the human users, developers, or organizations that own and deploy the AI.
Tool or Medium: AI is considered a tool or medium through which tasks can be automated or content can be generated. Similar to a computer program, AI acts based on the instructions it receives from its creators. The responsibility for ensuring that AI actions comply with copyright laws rests with those who design and deploy the AI system.
Lack of Intention: AI lacks intentionality, understanding, and consciousness. It doesn't have the capacity to purposefully infringe on copyright because it doesn't have motivations, desires, or awareness. Any issues related to copyright infringement are typically unintentional and result from how the AI was trained or programmed.
Human Oversight and Control: AI systems are typically designed and operated under human oversight. Humans are responsible for defining the goals, setting the parameters, and monitoring the output of AI systems. If there are copyright concerns related to AI-generated content, it's often the result of decisions made by humans in the training or deployment process.
Existing Legal Framework: Current copyright laws are designed to address issues related to intellectual property, ownership, and infringement. These laws apply to human actors, and legal responsibility is attributed to individuals or organizations. If AI-generated content leads to copyright disputes, the legal framework will typically hold the human entities accountable.
However, it's essential to note that as AI technologies advance, there are ongoing discussions and debates about adapting legal frameworks to address emerging challenges. Questions related to accountability, liability, and ownership in the context of AI-generated content continue to be topics of legal and ethical consideration. It's crucial for legal systems to evolve to ensure accountability and fairness in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Not interested in comments predicated on what commenters asked AI, especially _about_ AI.
"...any accountability lies with the human users, developers, or organizations that own and deploy the AI."
In other words, a consumer who uses a tape recorder to copy and distribute copyrighted music is accountable, not the manufacturer of the tape recorder.
The problem is that AI creates interesting sounding babble - none of it is real.
Let AI do some science, when it can do that, then it will have something...
Open AI stealing all content
😂 it's not stealing if read the New York Times case.
the New York Times literally posted there own article into the chat bot and then asked it to repeat it.
Then took screenshots of the text and said look it's similar 😂 so we should win this case. It's a literal clown show.
Chat bot results are NOT copywritable
FYI, that is merely a temporary limitation of the copyright system not wanting to properly deal with the question yet. And a case like this, is grounds for the US government to step in, and block it for the sake of national security. They'd did more than that during the last cold war, and AI is putting us into another with China now. So a lawsuit like this winning what the NYT is requesting, would be very bad for us.
Hmm doesn’t work like that. It’s just building statistical models which is transformative and therefore fair use
It will combine things to match what the user is actually asking and has asked. It also will generate a different answer every single time you ask it, so no it's not copy paste@@novaowera9995
I agree. This is a publicity stunt from a dying machine.
😂the machines will raise
Legally speaking the times have no ground to stand on.
This is bullcrap and impeding the progress of humanity. Make copyright interested party request openAI to delist or remove their sites from accessing data, and problem solved.
Then every school teacher and every school should be sued for the same reason. This law suit is ridiculous!!!!
This ish dum af why dont ny times just buy or make they on ai and become richer with information as well as gain a extra output engine 🤷
It is clear that they used copyrighted content in their training process.
LONG LIVE AI! THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY!
Do watch
Beyond the Lawsuit: NYT vs Open AI and the Dark Side of Generative AI - czcams.com/video/TY2JszTHSxE/video.html