>It's the robbery of all of our culture to sell it back to us at a mark-up. Crimes this large are crimes against humanity. So many people whose life's work got appropriated without consideration, compensation or consent it is baffling.

This is such a brain-dead take. By that logic there could never be any kind of AI, because unlike a human it'd be completely forbidden from learning from the sources of knowledge from which humans learn. It's stupid to suggest silicon brains should not legally be able to read copyrighted material just because you hate bigcos and capitalism.

Learning isn't stealing, regardless of whether it's done by a human or a machine. By your logic someone reading and memorizing all somebody's life work is appropriation; completely inane.

▲

layer8 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Learning isn’t stealing, but if you’d set up a forum or hotline where paid staff would answer questions and write essay directly based on NYT content without a license for that content, that would probably be deemed illegal.

	▲	keeda 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would highly doubt it, because news outlets and blogs rehash each others' reporting all the time. How many times have you seen an article start with "Today <XYZ publication> broke the news that..."? Since this is a copyright fight, rights extend only to verbatim copies of the full work or significant portions thereof. Abstract things like facts, ideas, concepts, themes, and patterns are explicitly not protected, and rightfully so. Yet those abstract things are what get repeated and distributed, and are what get encoded into model weights. This is probably plaintiffs' biggest challenge because it has been very hard to get models to regurgitate entire works except for a very small handful of extremely popular works (and now there are guardrails against even that.)

▲

chrisjj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This is such a brain-dead take. By that logic there could never be any kind of AI, because unlike a human it'd be completely forbidden from learning from the sources of knowledge from which humans learn.

Incorrect. You overlooked consideration.

▲

kg 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're ignoring that there are options other than theft. Heard of buying things?

	▲	px43 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do you think OpenAI has a New York Times subscription? Do you think that's actually relevant to what the New York Times is arguing here? The vast a majority of text that is being claimed to have been "stolen" was never for sale. Reddit posts, deviant art images, personal websites, etc.