OpenAI Warns Limiting AI Access To Copyrighted Content Could Give China Advantage
- Reference: 0176704941
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/03/13/1846224/openai-warns-limiting-ai-access-to-copyrighted-content-could-give-china-advantage
- Source link:
In its March 13 document, OpenAI argues its AI training aligns with fair use doctrine, saying its models don't replicate works but extract "patterns, linguistic structures, and contextual insights" without harming commercial value of original content. "If the PRC's developers have unfettered access to data and American companies are left without fair use access, the race for AI is effectively over. America loses, as does the success of democratic AI," OpenAI stated.
The Microsoft-backed startup criticized European and UK approaches that allow copyright holders to opt out of AI training, claiming these restrictions hinder innovation, particularly for smaller companies with limited resources. The proposal comes as China-based DeepSeek recently released an AI model with capabilities comparable to American systems despite development at a fraction of the cost.
[1] https://cdn.openai.com/global-affairs/ostp-rfi/ec680b75-d539-4653-b297-8bcf6e5f7686/openai-response-ostp-nsf-rfi-notice-request-for-information-on-the-development-of-an-artificial-intelligence-ai-action-plan.pdf
Public is public (Score:1)
If it's posted in public, it's public
If it's behind a paywall or otherwise restricted, it's private
Re: (Score:2)
Public does not mean "do anything you like with it". Seriously. Stupid "argument" is stupid.
Re: Public is public (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, his mom was in public and I pretty much did anything I could think of with herâ¦
Re: Public is public (Score:2)
Nah, private means nothing if you opened a file with an "AI enhanced " application.
To learn, wouldnâ(TM)t an intelligence need t (Score:5, Insightful)
Iâ(TM)ve not understood the argument against having AI reading copyrighted content. That would be like a scholar only reading things out of copyright.
Re: To learn, wouldnâ(TM)t an intelligence ne (Score:3)
It's reading it without paying.
The scholars have to respect it. They buy books, their institutions pay for access to journals... You're arguing that AI should have an unfair advantage over humans.
Re: (Score:3)
But they also read everything freely published on the web. The argument is an AI has to pay to learn from things a human doesn't. They're also arguing paying for access like a person isn't enough. They should be punished for illegally accessing material they have no right to, but you're saying that they should have to pay or pay more to learn from the same things humans can access for free or for less.
Having the same right to learn from what they can lawfully access isn't giving AI an unfair advantage; qu
Re: (Score:2)
Strawman.
Nobody is saying AI should have free access to a paid journal or something. Just that it consume what any other person could for free on the web.
Not saying that I agree with this- the consequence, I imagine, is that *everything* becomes paywalled- but that's their argument, and you're misconstruing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you get to read it? Why should the AI get to read it if you didn't?
It's not as if any of the contributors to a given paper on JSTOR was asked if their paper could be public or not, or is paid when someone downloads their work for that matter. For public universities, why should I have to rely on paying AI tens of thousands of dollars to get at the derived results of works that originated in the fucking public sector?
Re: (Score:3)
"That would be like a scholar only reading things out of copyright"
If that scholar uses that work for their own research or paper, they have to credit or cite it -- HUGE difference than what's happening with LLM training, it's not in any way comparable.
AI companies are making serious money using prior works to build their models, with no compensation or even credit/acknowledgement to those who actually generated the content or data.
Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations aren't required by copyright law. And only specific things are cited; they're not citing the tens of thousands of sources that went into their general education. Artists don't list every influence that went into their work... hell they *couldn't*.
It is hard for me to understand why I suddenly have to pay just because I made a computer program to also learn from what I'm free to learn from. Pirated material is one thing; but what's being accessed lawfully, especially freely? It's like StackOverflo
Re: (Score:2)
> If that scholar uses that work for their own research or paper, they have to credit or cite it -- HUGE difference than what's happening with LLM training, it's not in any way comparable.
I'm a bit worried you've had a stroke, because you just presented an even less functional analogy and used it as an example of how the original was different.
If the LLM writes a paper, it too should cite. However, a scholar learning from something they read does not require citation.
Re: To learn, wouldnâ(TM)t an intelligence ne (Score:2)
AI is exposing how frail copyright is in the face of technology that can replicate artifacts quickly. Everyone has been in denial about this for a long time, and ridiculous mechanisms of control have been implemented, but digitization has always been incompatible with copyright. There will always be a way to get around DRM. No matter how sophisticated the DRM, media will always be vulnerable to capture and reproduction when the end user can experience it.
We should not be desperately attempting to maintain t
Re: To learn, wouldnâ(TM)t an intelligence n (Score:2)
So then no one is motivated to discover anything because if they post it then it will just be stolen. Brilliant.
good one (Score:5, Funny)
I'll use this next time I get pulled over for speeding.
"Sorry officer, but if you don't let me drive fast, workers in China are going to get to work before me, and that will be bad for America"
Re: (Score:1)
"But the Chinese ride bicycles faster than you to work, in snow, without shoes, against the wind, up hill, both ways. Now pay up!"
Napster (Score:2)
I didn't download all of those songs to steal them. It was fair use because I was just training myself on the material so that I could generate new material in similar styles.
Let them steal everything! (Score:4, Insightful)
They must get rich quick! Or else.
Seriously, these companies should be disbanded and their owners should have their fortunes impounded and paid out to the ones they stole from.
And no, this is not "learning". This is commercial copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is learning, the problem is billions of dollars have been spent convincing people and governments that using other peoples work is "stealing", a thing that has been done by people for thousands of years. Now another group of rich people find it inconvenient and want it changed, it just sound hypocritical. Just wait till people copying their code to make their own AI, then these people will think its wrong again.
Re: (Score:2)
> And no, this is not "learning". This is commercial copyright infringement.
Yes, because copyright infringement is mutually exclusive to learning, ignoring the fact that you're begging the question since this isn't determined to be copyright infringement or not, yet.
Try harder, dude. Do your blind hatred a favor and at least grant it 4 of your brain cells when coming up with shitposts.
Another inconvenient truth (Score:3)
They are right in that giving them free reign with copywrites will speed up AI training, and not doing so may give an advantage to competitors and adversaries. However, just because it is strategically the "right thing to do" doesn't make it the ethical, or actually right, thing to do.
Library Card for AI? (Score:2)
If my browser can connect to a publicly accessible library via the internet on my behalf why can't my AI trainer? It doesn't have the fidelity of taking screenshots - it doesn't 'copy'. The training data is an amalgamation with no ability to faithfully reproduce an original; so what is the basis for blocking access to copyrighted works???
I say, give the trainer access to the USLOC and let it run.
Give us what we demand! (Score:3)
If we can't steal everyone's private personal data and use it to train our AI China will win!
Re: (Score:2)
Error on my part "everyone's private personal data" -> "all data"
"China" is now "The Terrorists." (Score:2)
If you don't give up all your freedoms, the terrorists will win!
If you don't give in to every corporate demand, China will win!
Hmm. Hyperbolic fear. By golly, it just might work!/p.
What race would China win (Score:1)
...by scanning more romance novels and cat videos than USA?
Are next-generation weapons quantum-powered by passionate Schrodinger cats or something?
(Pepe Le Pew cartoons come to mind for some reason; Schrodinger's Skunk?)
The hubris (Score:1)
My business model doesnâ(TM)t work if it needs to respect the law. We must change the law so I can make money.
Limited access? As in having to pay for it? (Score:3)
Not having free access to all tv and films, for all of us, gives China an advantage.
Having to pay money to OpenAI, especially at their insane subscription amounts,
also gives China an advantage.
Balanced solution (Score:2)
We have a classic case of peoples' rights to be rewarded for their efforts vs sharing that for the greater good. So it would make sense to come up with a balanced solution that is fair to everyone.
However none of that matters as really what is really happen is one greedy group, the companies selling people's work and taking most of the money in the process is fighting with another greedy group feeding anything they lay their hands on to their AIs for training. Maybe we just need to lock all the CEOs of
Re: (Score:2)
> peoples' rights to be rewarded for their efforts
No such right actually exists, except as granted by statute- meaning it can be taken away.
> So it would make sense to come up with a balanced solution that is fair to everyone.
Indeed, it would, particularly since copyright is again, not a natural right.
> However none of that matters as really what is really happen is one greedy group, the companies selling people's work and taking most of the money in the process is fighting with another greedy group feeding anything they lay their hands on to their AIs for training. Maybe we just need to lock all the CEOs of the relevant companies in a room with good solid walls and doors, and come back some time later to see who is still standing. Or maybe not come back...
Don't disagree with this at all.
Re: Balanced solution (Score:2)
Selling may be greedy, but using it without paying for it is criminal. You can't really compare the two.
They don't create (Score:2)
The elephant in the room is that AI companies want to profit from knowing things, but current AI needs humans to learn it first or it is useless. You are selling something but you don't create any of it.
Aaron Swartz (Score:4, Insightful)
Carmen Ortiz used brutal tactics to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide over doing this for *public domain* documents. Now unethical corporations do it daily for all copyrighted content and it's just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese ignore our copyright laws, so we should get to ignore them too!
That's the thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally irrelevant to my comment. Maybe someone will punish you so you stop top-posting