Thank God, a response which addresses none of the content of the parent post which is now flagged for pointing out current facts of the case, along with anything else in the thread which doesn't align with "AI BAD".
HN has fallen far.
HN has fallen far.
The article you linked is irrelevant because it is about a DIFFERENT CASE.
_Authors Guild v. OpenAI_ is NOT _The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. et al._
The gall of you to act indignant about 'facts of the case'.
Even if you weren't lazy or illiterate; Mike isn't a neutral party either.
> "Of course, my biases are known: I’m quite convinced that training AI on copyrighted works is fair use, and I find the argument that slop books “dilute” non-slop books to be beyond nonsensical."
Even if you agree with Mike, OpenAI thought they could replace/dilute authors, and workers generally, as disclosed by their internal discussions.
Even if you agree with Mike that training, generally, is fair use, they did not pay for the torrented works they trained their models on, which is still illegal! This is why they shifted to buying and shredding books after they lost other lawsuits.
> 'AI bad'
Bay Area self-styled demi-gods bad, actually. Their products, like always, are incidental to their rapaciousness and their impunity from laws.