Millions of articles from The New York Times were used to train chatbots that now compete with it, the lawsuit said.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 个月前

    I don’t think I agree with any of that. I’m not sure if I understand any of that.

    I hold the view that intellectual property is a privilege granted by society, for the benefit of society.

    We agree that information should be freely given…

    I guess information means facts and data that cannot be intellectual property? I don’t necessarily agree that this should be freely given, depending on what “should” means. Unearthing facts takes effort and money. The logic behind some kinds of IP, like patents, is that it is supposed to allow eg inventors to monetize their efforts. Society benefits by having more inventions/information. Put another way, it gives people together a way to pay inventors without working through the government.

    In some cases, it would cause disproportionate harm to society to enforce a monopoly on certain information. Say, some newspaper sleuths uncover a corruption scandal. As soon as they publish, all the other news media will pick it up and report on it. I don’t think it’s a good thing for society that this is so hard to monetize. But I don’t have a solution.

    … and provided to create products that are freely given and provided.

    I’ve already mentioned that I agree with patents, despite all abuses of the system. Patents provide a more direct incentive than government funding to think of ways of improving things. It also allows people to vote with their wallet, whether the effort is worth it. Electing representatives that decide on taxes and budgets, and watch over government officials giving grants, is extremely indirect. The patent system cannot replace government funding, but I believe that it is a beneficial complement.

    We agree that it’s bad for information to be freely given to create products which are sold for private gain.

    So, obviously I don’t agree with this. In fact, I don’t even understand why it would be bad. Why is it bad?

    When it comes to this specific court case, either the NYT will win or OpenAI will win, and I’m saying the NYT winning is the better of the two outcomes.

    How am I supposed to make sense of that in light of your first paragraph? Apparently, the second sentence (“…sold for private gain”) is the absolute, over-riding concern. I don’t understand why. I especially don’t understand why it is so important to you, that you want to do away with free information if you can’t have that.

    Obviously, this implies opposition to any kind of “public domain” information (expired patents or copyrights, scientific facts and laws, and so on…), until we have some kind of communist economic system. I don’t know if you have thought it through to that point.