|
|
|
|
|
|
by cvadict
708 days ago
|
|
|
> thief breaking into your house, stealing all. . . This is where your analogy is flawed. You are pre-supposing the "defendant" is indeed the thief that stole your property. Whereas that is entirely a legal determination which is the outcome of a trial AND at the heart of this discovery request. More aptly if you thought steve stole your red Ryder bb gun, and Steve was indeed found to be in possession of a red Ryder bb gun, it would still be the prosecution's burden to prove that Steve stole it from you (instead of purchased it from a store). Similarly here, if NYTimes is claiming that openai's gpt4 illegally reproduces "to be or not to be. . ." (Or whatevs) from issue #8628 page 76, it's still their burden to prove that is actually a thing that is both copyrightable and that they own the copyright to vs. openai just reproducing Hamlet instead of a nytime's reporter's particular review of a production of hamlet in that issue. Etc. etc. More germanely, if you point an llm at a pile of source documents and ask it to write a newspaper article, it'll happily do so in 2024. Understanding if/how this is fundamentally different from what a reporter does when synthesizing that same article goes to the very heart of this case (i.e. which transformative works are indeed copyrightable) |
|
|
It's perfectly obvious what OpenAI did - and it knows perfectly well how limited its horizons will be if it can't build its empire on the basis of stolen material.
That's why it's now hissing and spitting like a cornered animal.