Comment on "Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?"
localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months agoWell if you believe that you should look at the times lawsuit.
Word for word on hundreds/thousands of pages of stolen content, its damming
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Why do you assume that I haven’t? The case hasn’t been resolved and it’s not clear how The NY Times did what they claim, which is may as well be manipulation. It’s a fair rebuttal by OpenAI. The Times haven’t provided the steps they used to achieve that.
So unless that’s cleared up, it’s not damming in the slightest. Not yet, anyway. And that still doesn’t invalidate my statement above, because it’s still under very specific circumstances when that happens.
Emy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Also intention is pretty important when determining the guilt of many crimes. OpenAI doesnt intentionally spit back an author’s exact words, their intention is to summarize and create unique content.
pm_me_your_titties@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Ah, yes. The defense of “I didn’t mean to do it.” Always a classic.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 8 months ago
No, the real defense is “that’s not how LLMs work” but you are all hinging on the wrong idea. If you so think that an LLM is capable of doing what you claim, I’d love to hear the mechanism in detail and the steps to replicate it.
whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I mean, I’m not sure why this conversation even needs to get this far. If I write an article about the history of Disney movies, and make it very clear the way I got all of those movies was to pirate them, this conversation is over pretty quick. OpenAI and most of the LLMs aren’t doing anything different. The Times isn’t Wikipedia, most of their stuff is behind a paywall with pretty clear terms of service and nothing entitles OpenAI to that content. OpenAI’s argument is “well, we’re pirating everything so it’s okay.” The output honestly seems irrelevant to me, they never should have had the content to begin with.