Hacker News Reader

Comment by 63 | Hacker News Reader

While I also disagree with the court order and OpenAI's implementation (along with pretty much everything else the company does), the conspiratorial thinking in the comments here is unfounded. The order is overly broad but in the context of the case, it's not totally unwaranted. This is not some conspiracy to collect data on people. I'm confident the records will be handled appropriately once the case concludes (and if they're not, we can be upset then, not now). Let's please reserve our outrage for the plethora of very real issues going on right now.

View on HN

> and if they're not, we can be upset then, not now

Like we could be upset when that credit checking company dumped all those social security numbers on the net and had to pay the first 200k claimants a grand total of $21 for their trouble?

By that point it’s far too late.

Are we talking about the same company that needs data desperately and has used copyrighted material illegally without permission?

When did they use copyrighted material illegally?

I didn't think any of the ongoing "fair use" lawsuits had reached a conclusion on that.

The Thomson Reuters case [1] is the most relevant in the court's finding that the copying of copyrighted material from Westlaw by Ross Intelligence was direct copyright infringement and was not fair use.

The purpose of training in many of the AI Labs being sued mostly matches the conditions that Ross Intelligence was found to have violated, and the question of copying is almost guaranteed if they trained on it.

[1] Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al v. ROSS Intelligence Inc. https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/20-613...

Thanks, I hadn't seen that one.

ok then let's say they used the copyrighted material without permission

Sorry, I meant to write "monetized copyrighted material without permission".

We'll see if the courts deem it legal but it's, without a doubt, unehtical.

Eh, I have the opposite view but then again I'm a copyright minimalist.

So you think artists do not need to be able to make a living?

I think everyone has a right to live, but we don't have to break human culture with commercialization to achieve that.

That's true, they did.

In what world do you live in where corporations have any right to a benefit of the doubt? When did that legitimately pan out?

> I'm confident the records will be handlded appropriately once the case concludes (and if they're not, we can be upset then, not now)

This makes no sense to me. Shouldn't we address the damage before it's done vs handwringing after the fact?

the damage to which party?

Certainly not the copyright holders, which have lost any form of my sympathy over the past 25 years.

Users, presumably

You're pretty naive. OpenAI is still trying to figure out how to be profitable. Having a court order to retain a treasure trove of data they were already wanting to keep while offering not to, or claiming not to? Hahaha.

Preserving data for a judicial hold does not give them leeway to use that data for other purposes, but don't let facts get in the way of your FUD.

>> Preserving data for a judicial hold does not give them leeway to use that data for other purposes

Does not give them permission. What if LEO asks for the data? Should they hand it over just because they have it? Remember, this happens all the time with metadata from other companies (phone carriers for example). Having the data means it's possible to use it for other purposes as opposed to not possible. There is always pressure to do so both from within and outside a company.

> Should they hand it over just because they have it?

Not unless LEO sues OpenAI while it's preserving data from the first discovery, otherwise they cannot be compelled to give up data. Nor are they allowed to violate their TOS and use the data outside of retention, despite the FUD you want to spread about it.

> Having the data means it's possible

No, it doesn't. That's not how any of this works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com