Hacker News Reader

Comment by PurpleRamen | Hacker News Reader

Can this be a necessary legal framing for technical purposes, to allow converting of pictures to different resolutions, or adapt the content to mobile views, and such things?

View on HN

To me this looks like legal preparation for selling their users' datasets for AI training purposes.

Basically the same phrasing was widespread before LLMs were invented. So I don't think it's specifically motivated by that.

Hoarding massive amounts of data for the success of machine learning algorithms was a thing long before LLMs were a thing too. Remember the neural networks hype that kicked off around 2010? LLMs didn't even challenge the prevalent paradigms of deep learning: "Most of the value of deep learning is where you can get a lot of data" or "Data is the new oil".

This is more-or-less standard boilerplate from _long_ before the current AI training even existed. It basically means “we can do anything we like with it, now and at any time in the future, including selling it and passing these rights on to anyone else we chose, but don't take ownership so we can't be held responsible for it”.

Officially it means they can legally do wat you want them to do (present the content to users, perhaps transforming it in various ways for some or all viewers), but of course it covers them being able to do far more than that.

Unlikely. It goes further by also using the word "exploit".

If they needed permissions for conversion, they'd have made a specific mention of that and thereafter confirmed legal ownership.

TBH, I like that the word “exploit” is in there. It feels more honest and if it were not present!

I mean, even all else aside - why would they need a "perpetual, irrevocable" licence?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com