[cxr]

Ditch the swipes; I'm not the one confused here. We're talking about copyright infringement, not trespass.

(Your analogy is bad and doesn't hold up. Copyright doesn't grant rightsholders control of the sort required here. It grants them the right to make and distribute copies. It doesn't grant the right to undistribute copies when it turns out they don't like what someone is doing with them.)

[Retric]

OpenAI doesn’t maintain a copy.

A core argument OpenAI is making is transitory copying is allowed as long training is fair use. But a permanent copy stored in a training database isn’t transitory and would itself be copyright infringement, so they don’t do that.

Thus training each version requires permission to download a new copy, which they now lack.

[cxr]

EDIT: The comment I first responded to (only partially reconstructible from quoted parts below) has been edited to something to something almost completely different. Very uncool.

> ChatGPT keeps redownloading works to avoid the issue of keeping permeant copy’s of the training material

I don't know enough about how ChatGPT works to know whether or not that's true, but from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong because of how insane it would be if true, and I'm not at all convinced that you're right about this given how poorly you understand the other stuff you're trying to argue that I happen to know you're wrong about, so it doesn't seem unwise to conclude that the same is probably true about your claims here. But it doesn't matter, anyway:

> which would be obvious copyright infringement

Wrong. OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out (whether/despite OpenAI having/not having "permission" or not). Not copyright infringement, let alone "obvious copyright infringement".

This is going to be my last response that takes a substantial amount of effort to compose. Arguing with /r/confidentlyincorrect-tier zero-effort Gish gallops* is not a good use of my time.

* especially from someone shameless about editing their posts after the fact to make them diverge substantially from what was originally written

[Retric]

> OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out

The computer said ok isn’t enough or hacking would be legal.

> from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong

An engineering standpoint is completely irrelevant, this is a pure legal matter. The law is a strange place with it’s own rules you need to actually look into it not just make assumptions.

[cxr]

You seem confused. I didn't eat two tamales for lunch yesterday. I ate three. Don't make assumptions.

(Why do I need to post not just one but two exhortations to follow the basic rules of conversation? If you're going to say something, then say something true, but make sure it's also relevant.)

[Retric]

I just explained that “OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out” doesn’t work. Hint what physically happens isn’t legal permission.

If you don’t understand I can clarify, but being obtuse just makes you seem childish.

PS: If analogy is annoy you I could stop, but you don’t understand what’s involved so I am trying to help.

[cxr]

Hitting your partner is at the very least inconsiderate to them. Depending on your jurisdiction, it's probably also varying degrees of illegal. If you need some guidance on how to communicate without expressing it in the form of physical violence, I can try to help, but ultimately it's up to you.