Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat more difficult to run a business when an American multinational steals your revenue and your content.

On the other hand, the complainer mentioned is the Daily Mail.

I'd much rather see a non specific ruling over whether or not summarizing already short articles is copyright infringement - regardless of who's doing it. Copyright litigation and legislation tends to favor the richer party no matter where it happens.

Newspapers are notorious for lifting stories and photos from social media. They rarely bother to compensate the original creator either.

Perhaps a better approach is to make sure that the AI summaries are just as liable for libel actions, and regulator mandatory corrections, as the newspapers.

View on HN

> make sure that the AI summaries are just as liable for libel actions

Is libel in AI generated summaries a problem?

Also, it seems you are fundamentally missing how AI is different. What would you expect a “regulator mandatory correction” to look like, a one sentence summary comes with a notice that it was corrected at some point?

AI is also going to make regulators and bureaucrats totally superfluous if done properly, where AI simply “regulates” based on laws written in a clear text and open weight manner.

> Is libel in AI generated summaries a problem?

Clearly, given there have been cases about it already.

> Also, it seems you are fundamentally missing how AI is different. What would you expect a “regulator mandatory correction” to look like, a one sentence summary comes with a notice that it was corrected at some point?

Laws shouldn't care about mechanisms, they should care about outcomes. We can't allow ourselves to say "this tech makes ${legal obligation XYZ} impossible to perform, let us deploy it anyway": either you figure out how to solve for ${XYZ} or you don't get to deploy it.

> AI is also going to make regulators and bureaucrats totally superfluous if done properly, where AI simply “regulates” based on laws written in a clear text and open weight manner.

"If" is doing heavy lifting there — "if done properly", AI makes all human labour redundant. Nobody knows how far away "done properly" is.

> Somewhat more difficult to run a business when an American multinational steals your revenue and your content.

Somewhat more difficult to run a business when EU commissioners keep making up fines to steal your revenue.

Ignorance of the law is, famously, not an excuse.

This law was not put on display in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory behind a sign saying "beware of the leopard" in a basement with neither working stairs nor light, what they're being investigated for is something that Google has already fallen foul of with its search engines in multiple nations worldwide.

Does Google still follow robots.txt? I think so. Should be easy to exclude Google Crawlers if that's what you're after. But of course everyone wants to profit off of Google's reach so excluding them won't work for most either.

We've had ~20+ years to come up with something better than copyright with nothing to show for. First it was the plebs ignoring copyrights, then it was the search engines and social networks and their knowledge graphs and now it's the billionaires and their AI companies that hoover up the web.

I thought here in HN we agreed that copying information was not stealing? You know, how you are not depriving the original website of their information or anything, because everything can be copied infinitely.

... we agreed that copying information was not stealing if you are the compnay stealing it, but if it is your information that it is being stolen then it is theft and should be treated as such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com