The narrative that OpenAI, Microsoft, and freshly minted White House “AI czar” David Sacks are now pushing to explain why DeepSeek was able to create a large language model that outpaces OpenAI’s while spending orders of magnitude less money and using older chips is that DeepSeek used OpenAI’s data unfairly and without compensation. Sound familiar?
Both Bloomberg and the Financial Times are reporting that Microsoft and OpenAI have been probing whether DeepSeek improperly trained the R1 model that is taking the AI world by storm on the outputs of OpenAI models.
It is, as many have already pointed out, incredibly ironic that OpenAI, a company that has been obtaining large amounts of data from all of humankind largely in an “unauthorized manner,” and, in some cases, in violation of the terms of service of those from whom they have been taking from, is now complaining about the very practices by which it has built its company.
OpenAI is currently being sued by the New York Times for training on its articles, and its argument is that this is perfectly fine under copyright law fair use protections.
“Training AI models using publicly available internet materials is fair use, as supported by long-standing and widely accepted precedents. We view this principle as fair to creators, necessary for innovators, and critical for US competitiveness,” OpenAI wrote in a blog post. In its motion to dismiss in court, OpenAI wrote “it has long been clear that the non-consumptive use of copyrighted material (like large language model training) is protected by fair use.”
OpenAI argues that it is legal for the company to train on whatever it wants for whatever reason it wants, then it stands to reason that it doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on when competitors use common strategies used in the world of machine learning to make their own models.
No honor among thieves.
There’s plenty of honor in Deepseek releasing open source.
The new innovate and the old litigate.
Yas 🐸
Big mad
everyone concerned about their privacy going to china-- look at how easy it is to get it from the hands of our overlord spymasters who’ve already snatched it from us.
The battle of the plagiarism machines has begun
Regardless of how OpenAI procured their data, I’m absolutely shocked that a company from China would obtain data unauthorized from a company in another country.
It just gets better and better y’all.
https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/30/deepseek_database_left_open/
@whostosay I know they’re being touted as having done very much with very little, but this kind of thing should have been part of the little.
I’m not understanding your reply, do you mind rephrasing?
Security? We don’t need no security!
You get a free database, and you get free database, and you get a free database! EVERYBODY GETS A FREE DATABASE
Oprahbees.gif
Fuck you! Pay me for my data asshole!
Shit posters and linux forums are the back bone of these “AI” after you account for all the commons that parasite took and try to lock up.
I love how die hard free market defenders turn into fuming protectionists the second their hegemony is threatened.
Tale as old as capitalism.
👏👏👏👏👏
Tamaleeeeeeeeesssssss
hot hot hot hot tamaleeeeeeeees
I feel like I didn’t appreciate this movie enough when I first watched it but it only gets better as I get older
It’s a true comedy that still holds up. I honestly thought for years that Mel Brooks had something to do with it, but he didn’t. It’s so well crafted that there are many layers to it that you can’t even grasp when watching as a child. Seeing it as an adult just open your eyes to how amazingly well done it was.
I could do without the whole Billy Crystalizing of large portions of it though.
I always thought Rob Reiner had a similar sense of humor to Mel Brooks. And I liked Billy Crystal in it, it kept that section of the movie from feeling too heavy, though I get it’s not everyone’s thing.
For anyone who hasn’t read it, the book is fantastic as well, and helped me appreciate the movie even more (it’s probably one of the best film adaptations of a book ever, IMO). The humor and wit of William Goldman was captured expertly in the movie.
I didn’t realize it was a book. Guess I’ll be searching that out.
Rob Reiner’s dad Carl was best friends with Mel Brooks for almost all of Carl’s adult life.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/06/carl-reiner-mel-brooks-friendship
“Now” is always a good time to rewatch it & get more out of it!
Intellectual property theft for me but not for thee!
It’s a shame that you can’t copyright the output of AI, isn’t it?
Trump executive order on the copyrightability of AI output in 3…
so? it won’t have any effect on china, because last i checked, us laws apply only in the us
I can’t believe we’re still on this nonsense about AI stealing data for training.
I’ve had this argument so many times before y’all need to figure out which data you want free and which data do you want to pay for because you can’t have it both ways.
Either the data is free or it’s paid for. For everyone including individuals and corporations.
You can’t have data be free for some people and be paid for for others it doesn’t work that way we don’t have the infrastructure to support this kind of thing.
For example Wikipedia can’t make its data available for AI training for a price and free for everyone else. You can just go to wikipedia.com and read all the data that you want. It’s available for free there’s no paywall there’s no subscriptions no account to make no password to put in no username to think of.
Either all data is free or it’s all paid for.
Many licences have different rules for redistribution, which I think is fair. The site is free to use but it’s not fair to copy all the data and make a competitive site.
Of course wikipedia could make such a license. I don’t think they have though.
How is the lack of infrastructure an argument for allowing something morally incorrect? We can take that argument to absurdum by saying there are more people with guns than there are cops - therefore killing must be morally correct.
The core infrastructure issue is distinguishing between queries made by individuals and those made by programs scraping the internet for AI training data. The answer is that you can’t. The way data is presented online makes such differentiation impossible.
Either all data must be placed behind a paywall, or none of it should be. Selective restriction is impractical. Copyright is not the central issue, as AI models do not claim ownership of the data they train on.
If information is freely accessible to everyone, then by definition, it is free to be viewed, queried, and utilized by any application. The copyrighted material used in AI training is not being stored verbatim—it is being learned.
In the same way, an artist drawing inspiration from Michelangelo or Raphael does not need to compensate their estates. They are not copying the work but rather learning from it and creating something new.
I mean, sure, but the issue is that the rules aren’t being applied on the same level. The data in question isn’t free for you, it’s not free for me, but it’s free for OpenAI. They don’t face any legal consequences, whereas humans in the USA are prosecuted including an average fine per human of $266,000 and an average prison sentence of 25 months.
OpenAI has pirated, violated copyright, and distributed more copyright than an i divided human is reasonably capable of, and faces no consequences.
https://www.splaw.us/blog/2021/02/looking-into-statistics-on-copyright-violations/
https://www.patronus.ai/blog/introducing-copyright-catcher
My use of the term “human” is awkward, but US law considers corporations people, so i tried to differentiate.
I’m in favour of free and open data, but I’m also of the opinion that the rules should apply to everyone.
I tend to think that information should be free, generally, so I would probably be fine with “OpenAI the non-profit” taking copyrighted data under fair-use, but I don’t extend that thinking to “OpenAI the for-profit company”.
