they’re trying to argue that it’s like if you’re building a deck and mess up your permits, and the government knows and then waits until you’ve spent all the time and money finishing before telling you to rip it all down
Comment on Judge calls out OpenAI’s “straw man” argument in New York Times copyright suit
IllNess@infosec.pub 1 week ago
To support this, OpenAI pointed to a single November 2020 article, where the NYT reported that OpenAI was analyzing a trillion words on the Internet.
So OpenAI’s argument was the NYT knew OpenAI existed so it shouldn’t be allowed to keep its copyright… what?
pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 week ago
IllNess@infosec.pub 1 week ago
If you got a permit from the government to start building a deck, you started, then they found the mistake in the permit, that’s on the government and they should accept their fault.
In this case, the NYT never gave permission.
In your example, there was no permit applied for, a cop saw you building the deck, and when the government said you need to stop and apply for a permit, you say the cop seeing you building the deck is a permit since they didn’t stop you.
pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 week ago
okay yeah - not a perfect analogy… the point is that their argument is more nuanced… it’s still a strawman, but useful to understand their argument to predict their next moves
VitoRobles@lemmy.today 1 week ago
I read that section half a dozen times and I still don’t understand it.
It’s like they really don’t have lawyers on the team that know what they’re doing.
IllNess@infosec.pub 1 week ago
Yeah, me too. Like I get the words but not the logic.
Maybe their lawyers used ChatGPT.