Hacker News Reader

Comment by CaptainFever | Hacker News Reader

> A few go further and assert that all information should be free and any proprietary control of it is bad; this is the philosophy behind the GNU project.

In this view, the ideal world is one where copyright is abolished (but not moral rights). So piracy is good, and datasets are also good.

Asking creators to license their work freely is simply a compromise due to copyright unfortunately still existing. (Note that even if creators don't license their work freely, this view still permits you to pirate or mod it against their wishes.)

(My view is not this extreme, but my point is that this view was, and hopefully is, still common amongst hackers.)

I will ignore the moralizing words (eg "ruthless", "harvested" to mean "copied"). It's not productive to the conversation.

View on HN

If not respected, some Creators will strike, lay flat, not post, go underground.

Ignoring moral rights of creators is the issue.

Moral rights involve the attribution of works where reasonable and practical. Clearly doing so during inference is not reasonable or practical (you'll have to attribute all of humanity!) but attributing individual sources is possible and is already being done in cases like ChatGPT Search.

So I don't think you actually mean moral rights, since it's not being ignored here.

But the first sentence of your comment still stands regardless of what you meant by moral rights. To that, well... we're still commenting here, are we not? Despite it with almost 100% certainty being used to train AI. We're still here.

And yes, funding is a thing, which I agree needs copyright for the most part unfortunately. But does training AI on, for example, a book really reduce the need to buy the book, if it is not reproduced?

Remember, training is not just about facts, but about learning how humans talk, how languages work, how books work, etc. Learning that won't reduce the book's economical value.

And yes, summaries may reduce the value. But summaries already exist. Wikipedia, Cliff's Notes. I think the main defense is that you can't copyright facts.

we're still commenting here, are we not? Despite it with almost 100% certainty being used to train AI. We're still here

?!?! Comparing and equating commenting to creative works. ?!?!

These comments are NOT equivalent to the 17 full time months it took me to write a nonfiction book.

Or an 8 year art project.

When I give away my work I decide to whom and how.

I have already covered these points in the latter paragraphs.

You might want to take a look at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

I'll decide the distribution of my work. Be it 100 million unique views or NOT at all.

If you don't have a proper argument, it's best not to distribute your comment at all.

If saying it's my work is not a "proper" argument, that says it all.

Indeed, owner.

Look, either actually read the link and refute the points within, or don't. But there's no use discussing anything if you're unwilling to even understand and seriously refute a single point being made here, other than repeating "mine, mine, mine".

Read it. Lots of nots, and no respect.

In the process, [OpenAI] trained ChatGPT not to acknowledge or respect copyright, not to notify ChatGPT users when the responses they received were protected by journalists’ copyrights, and not to provide attribution when using the works of human journalists

No, wrong link.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42279218

Reply on news.ycombinator.com