I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “the button”. If you’re comparing this to DeepSeek’s copying, it’s not really the same thing right? DeepSeek essentially stole intellectual property by violating OpenAI’s terms of service. As I understand it, this is a copy of Google’s Deep Research
Deepseek proved that there is no moat. Thus no path to profitability for openai, anthropic & co.
Stealing from thieves is fine by me. Sama was the one claiming that all information could be used to train LLMs, without permisdion of the copyright holders.
Now the same is being done to openai. Well, too bad.
> Stealing from thieves is fine by me. Sama was the one claiming that all information could be used to train LLMs, without permisdion of the copyright holders.
OpenAI and other LLMs scraping the internet is probably covered under fair use. DeepSeek’s violation of OpenAI’s terms is pretty clearly a violation of their terms and not legal.
Care to explain how something that cannot be copyrighted and was not generated by a human is “intellectual property“? Or are you just parroting a narrative?
Explain the trade secrets contained in non-copyrightable AI outputs and the reasonable efforts OpenAI takes to keep its AI output “secret”. Or are you confused about what a “trade secret” actually is?
Yes those cases will be interesting. By default a lot of copyrighted content may be legal to use for training (in the US but also many other places) under what’s called fair use. The cases you’re referring to will likely reinforce this, but it isn’t known yet. Note that it’s not just OpenAI on that side of the argument but also other (non tech) organizations that believe protecting fair use here is current law and essential.
