Hacker News Reader

Comment by breppp | Hacker News Reader

It's more complicated than that because Google has been legally displaying other people copyrighted material for years.

In any case there's still a difference between publicly available copyrighted data and whether you can use it for model training, and the innovation around model training, RLHF, etc which you presumably have some interest as a country to allow companies to invest in with some legal protections (like the diff between patent law vs copyright law)

View on HN

So you're saying it's more important to safeguard slop outputs than the original work of human beings.

No, I am saying that there is a good chance that for the good of humanity, society decides that for miracle AGI we collectively forfeit copyright in LLM training yet IP protections for model development is still kept.

There are many cases in the early 2000s were copyright protections were relaxed for tech advancements

Does this match the kind of eminent domain case we might see where the country needs a highway more than it needs one particular citizen's house?

When they bulldoze the house to pave the highway, they toss the homeowner a few bucks. If you take an author’s books do you owe him a share of OpenAI?

What are you forfeiting for the good of humanity? Would you give up a big chunk of your income? What happens when this batch of “innovators” don’t deliver AGI and only enrich themselves? What happens if they do deliver AGI and (hypothetically) still keep it to themselves?

You come with the selfless proposal that everyone give to the poor $tn companies”for the good of humanity”. I’ll assume this is just hopelessly naive but you post so insistently that it makes me wonder.

“For the good of humanity we must protect what I’m working on at the expense of others because it’s super important.”

As frustrating as the anti-AI crowd can be, I see why they end up that way when the valley is full of opinions like this.

Have you at tried asking society how they feel about you acting "for their good"? Because popular sentiment seems pretty opposed to AI.

LLM output is not copyrightable, though? So effectively if you pay for it you can do whatever you want from it. That seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com