[CamperBob2]

I don't even understand why it's everyone elses problem to opt-out.

Because the work being done, from the point of view of people who believe they are on the verge of creating AGI, is arguably more important than copyright.

Less controversially: if the courts determine that training an ML model is not fair use, then anyone who respects copyright law will end up with an uncompetitive model. As will anyone operating in a country where the laws force them to do so. So don't expect the large players to walk away without putting up a massive fight.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Of note here is the reason it's "important" is it will make a shit-ton of money.

[CamperBob2]

That, coupled with the obvious ideological motivations. Success could alter the course of human history, maybe even for the better.

If you feel that what you're doing is that important, you're not going to let copyright law get in the way, and it would be silly to expect you to.

[SketchySeaBeast]

I can't say I believe that. If that were the case, they'd focus more on results and less on hyping up the next underwhelming generation.

[CamperBob2]

For one thing, they are focused on money because they need lots of it to do what they're doing.

For another, the o1-pro (and presumably o3) models are not "underwhelming" except to those who haven't tried them, or those who have an axe to grind. Serious progress is being made at an impressive pace... but again, it isn't coming for free.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Oh please. OpenAI and I guess every other AI company are for-profit.

The only change they are motivated by is their bank balances. If this were a less useful tool they’d still be motivated to ignore laws and exploit others.

[CamperBob2]

Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. You don't see that at Boeing or Microsoft.

Obviously it's a highly-commercial endeavor, which is why they are trying so hard to back away from the whole non-profit concept. But that's largely orthogonal to the question of whether they feel they are doing things for the benefit of humanity that are profound enough to justify blowing off copyright law.

Especially given that only HN'ers are 100% certain that training a model is infringement. In the real world, this is not a settled question. Why worry about obeying laws that don't even exist yet?

[maeil]

> Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in.

It isn't.

> There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired.

This only reinforces that the real drive is money.

[2muchcoffeeman]

>Especially given that only HN'ers are 100% certain that training a model is infringement. In the real world, this is not a settled question. Why worry about obeying laws that don't even exist yet?

This is exactly why people are against it.

Your argument is that there is no definitive law. Therefore the creators of the data you scrape to train, and their wishes are irrelevant.

If the motivation was to help humanity, they’d think twice about stepping on the toes of the humanity they want to save and we’d hear more about nontrivial uses.

[CamperBob2]

Your argument is that there is no definitive law. Therefore the creators of the data you scrape to train, and their wishes are irrelevant.

Correct, that is the position of the law. Here in America, we don't take the position, held in many other countries, that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. This is a good thing.

If the motivation was to help humanity, they’d think twice about stepping on the toes of the humanity they want to save

Whether it is permissible to train models with copyrighted content is up to the courts and Congress, not us. Until then, no one's toes are being stepped on. Everybody whose work was used to train the models still holds the same rights to that work that they held before.