←back to thread

237 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.255s | source
Show context
rpdillon ◴[] No.45900911[source]
I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't.

But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product.

In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm, so they have to trawl through private conversations OpenAI's customers have had with their service to see if they can find any.

It's quite literally a fishing expedition.

replies(10): >>45900955 #>>45901081 #>>45901082 #>>45901111 #>>45901248 #>>45901282 #>>45901672 #>>45901852 #>>45903876 #>>45906668 #
Sherveen ◴[] No.45900955[source]
Yeah, everyone else in the comments so far is acting emotionally, but --

As a fan and DAU of both OpenAI and the NYT, this is just a weird discovery demand and there should be another pathway for these two to move fwd in this case (NYT to get some semblance of understanding, OAI protecting end-user privacy).

replies(1): >>45904408 #
1. totallymike ◴[] No.45904408[source]
It sounds like the alternate path you're suggesting is for NYT to stop being wrong and let OpenAI continue being right, which doesn't sound much like a compromise to me.