←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 4 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jhaile ◴[12 May 25 15:48 UTC] No.43964361[source]▶
One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit. This will mean that US LLM companies will either fall behind or be too expensive. Which means China and other countries will probably surge ahead in AI, at least in terms of how useful the AI is.

That is not to say that we shouldn't do the right thing regardless, but I do think there is a feeling of "who is going to rule the world in the future?" tha underlies governmental decision-making on how much to regulate AI.

replies(10): >>43964511 #>>43964513 #>>43964544 #>>43964546 #>>43964647 #>>43964799 #>>43965877 #>>43966756 #>>43969913 #>>43974233 #
oooyay ◴[12 May 25 16:14 UTC] No.43964647[source]▶
Well hell, by that logic average citizens should be able to launder corporate intellectual property because China will never follow suit in adhering to intellectual property law. I'm game if you are.
replies(3): >>43964701 #>>43965219 #>>43969949 #
jowea ◴[12 May 25 16:18 UTC] No.43964701[source]▶
Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?
replies(1): >>43964790 #
oooyay ◴[12 May 25 16:25 UTC] No.43964790[source]▶
Yes, I was being a bit facetious. It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.
replies(3): >>43964944 #>>43964966 #>>43965117 #
1. gruez ◴[12 May 25 16:57 UTC] No.43965117[source]▶
>It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

"have their cake and eat it too" allegations only work if you're talking about the same entity. The copyright maximalist corporations (ie. publishers) aren't the same as the permissive ones (ie. AI companies). Making such characterizations make as much sense as saying "citizens don't get to eat their cake and eat it too", when referring to the fact that citizens are anti-AI, but freely pirate movies.

replies(1): >>43965143 #
2. _aavaa_ ◴[12 May 25 16:59 UTC] No.43965143[source]▶
Yes they are. Look at what happened when deepseek came out. Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony
replies(2): >>43965232 #>>43968036 #
3. gruez ◴[12 May 25 17:08 UTC] No.43965232[source]▶
>Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony

Can you link to the exact comments he made? My impression was that he was upset at the fact that they broke T&C of openai, and deepseek's claim of being much cheaper to train than openai didn't factor in the fact that it requried openai's model to bootstrap the training process. Neither of them directly contradict the claim that training is copyright infringement.

4. rubslopes ◴[12 May 25 22:27 UTC] No.43968036[source]▶
Another example: Microsoft suing pirated Windows distributors.