 |
|
|
|||||
Well, well, welllook who suddenly wants a word with the sheriff in the fair-use Wild West landscape of artificial intelligence. As Bloomberg first reported, Microsoft and its partner company OpenAI are investigating the white-hot Chinese startup DeepSeek after Microsoft security researchers allegedly discovered people linked to DeepSeek withdrawing large amounts of data through the companys API last fall. Elsewhere, White House AI czar David Sacks told Fox News on Tuesday that there is substantial evidence that DeepSeek distilled knowledge from OpenAIs AI models. These allegations align with other suspicious aspects of the new AI. For instance, when a Fast Company editor took DeepSeek for a test run earlier this week, the chatbot insisted it was made by Microsoft. Perhaps the Chinese companywhich built its new model in a matter of months with shockingly little funding and computing powerviolated the law by using OpenAIs output to develop its tech. Or maybe it operated entirely within a legal gray area. Either way, its ironic that a company whose entire business model is predicated on repurposing copyrighted material is now crying foul over another company repurposing its material. Ever since OpenAIs ChatGPT normalized generative AI in 2022, creators have accused it of essentially being a plagiarism machine. Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT require for their training immense sums of information about the world. That info often comes from the copyrighted work of human creators, many of whom did not sign off on their material being used for this purpose. Sometimes, the material is sourced and linked to; other times, not. But the direct use of copyrighted material is just standard AI. A February 2024 report from plagiarism detector Copyleaks found that 60% of ChatGPTs output contained some form of plagiarism. Lawsuits, litigation, and legal gray areas It should come as little surprise that all this plagiarism has kept Microsoft and OpenAI entangled in nonstop litigation over the past two years. The companies have faced class-action lawsuits from a group of nonfiction authors led by Julian Sancton and class-action lawsuits from such novelists as Jonathan Franzen and Jodi Picoult. Comedian Sarah Silverman, who is also an author, jumped in on yet another of these lawsuits, accusing not only OpenAI but also Meta of using copyrighted work without consent, without credit, and without compensation. And while publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Vox, and The Atlantic have entered into if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em partnership deals with Microsoft and OpenAI, the New York Times Company sued both companies for alleged copyright infringement in December of 2023. As of now, most of these cases are still ongoing, and the rules for fair use in training LLMs remain in flux. Whats illuminating in light of OpenAIs allegations against DeepSeek, however, is how OpenAI has defended its use of copyrighted material. During trial arguments earlier this month in the NYT Company case, OpenAI claimed (as ever) that its output is covered by the fair use doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material to create something new, as long as it doesnt compete with the original work. OpenAIs attorneys characterize ChatGPT as not actually storing copyrighted material, but merely relying on the aftereffects of material passing through its models during the training process. According to Digidays reporting on the hearing, an attorney representing OpenAI claimed, If I say to you, Yesterday all my troubles seemed so . . . , we will all think far away because we have been exposed to that text so many times, alluding to the lyrics of Yesterday by the Beatles. That doesnt mean you have a copy of that song somewhere in your brain. (It should be noted here that former Beatle Paul McCartney has also been quite vocal in his criticism of AI repurposing the work and creativity of human artists.) By OpenAIs own logic, maybe DeepSeek simply allowed output from a U.S. competitor to flow through its model during the training process. At this point, we dont know. (OpenAI confirmed with Fast Company that it is “reviewing” whether DeepSeek inappropriately used its data. Microsoft declined to comment on whats alleged in the Bloomberg report.) For years now, authors, journalists, artists, and all sorts of creators have been screaming at the top of their lungs, in and out of court, that AI platforms should either find a more ethical approach to their mission or abandon it altogether. Now that the entire American AI industry is reeling from a $1 trillion stock hit because a small startup allegedly gave them a taste of their own medicine, its no wonder that the response on social media has been a schadenfreude bonanza. Live by the fair use doctrine, die by the fair use doctrine.
Category:
E-Commerce
Hours after being sworn in as the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy took aim at the main way the federal government regulates miles per gallon for cars and pickup trucks also a principal way that it regulates air pollution and addresses climate change. Duffy ordered the federal agency in charge of fuel economy standards to reverse them as soon as possible. The standards have been in place since the 1970s energy crisis and were intended to conserve fuel and save consumers money at the gas pump. Here are five reasons why the action matters. What is the Trump administration doing exactly? Duffy ordered his chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “propose the rescission or replacement of any fuel economy standards” necessary to bring the rules in line with Trump’s priority of promoting oil and biofuel. The order came in a DOT memorandum Tuesday night. Duffy said the rules need to better align with the administrations overarching agenda because the existing CAFE standards promulgated by NHTSA are contrary to Administration policy. What does this mean for consumers and the climate? Duffy says eliminating the rules will increase Americans’ access to the full range of gasoline vehicles they need and can afford. Others disagree. This will raise consumers costs at the pump, increase tailpipe pollution and jeopardize U.S. automakers future, and no one voted for any of it. The only beneficiaries will be oil executives and Chinas auto industry, which will be happy to sell electric vehicles around the world with little U.S. competition, said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversitys Safe Climate Transport Campaign. In recent years, automakers have been producing gasoline cars that get significantly better mileage, which lowers the cost of driving and means lower sales for oil companies both refineries and producers. Transportation was the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Every atom of carbon pumped into a car’s gas tank comes out the tailpipe and many combine with oxygen to make carbon dioxide which holds onto extra heat for more than a century. Why does Trump want to repeal fuel efficiency rules? Duffys action aligns with a number of President Trumps promises, notably to end an electric vehicle mandate referring to former President Joe Bidens target for 50% of new car sales to be electric by 2030. Duffy wrote These fuel economy standards are set as such aggressive levels that automakers cannot, as a practical matter, satisfy the standards without rapidly shifting production away from internal-combustion-engine vehicles to alternative electric technologies. The new Secretary said artificially high standards force car manufacturers to phase out gasoline powered vehicles, making cars more expensive for buyers and destroying consumer choice at the dealership. There is no requirement for automakers to produce or consumers to purchase electric vehicles. The fuel economy standards work in sync with EPA limits on carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes to address climate change, which Trump also rejects. Duffy said CAFE rules are supposed to establish realistic rules for fleets that run on combustible liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel. He also cited the nations vast oil reserves, biofuel feedstocks and refining capacity as reason to establish lower standards. Trump has issued a series of orders including an energy emergency declaration, and has said the U.S. will drill, baby, drill. What’s the idea behind American fuel economy standards? CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy, rules date back to oil shocks Americans suffered in 1974 and 1980. The first ones went into effect in 1978. They are intended to help drivers use less fuel by requiring automakers’ fleets to meet average mile-per-gallon targets that initially increased with each model year, until progress stalled in the 1980s. Americans then saw no appreciable improvement in miles per gallon for around two decades. In recent years, automakers have offered car-buyers plenty of internal combustion engine meaning gasoline-powered cars with much better mileage, and that is largely due to increasingly stringent standards. What were the latest fuel economy rules going to do? The latest standards set under the Biden administration required automakers to average about 38 miles per gallon of gas by 2031. That’s in real-world driving. In every model year from 2027 to 2031, the rules are supposed to increase fuel economy 2% per year for passenger cars, while SUVs and other light trucks are set to increase by 2% a year from 2029 to 2031. An earlier proposal had even higher requirements. The standards aligned with tighter Biden-era EPA limits on pollution from passenger and commercial vehicles, and the former president’s broader support for incentivizing electric vehicle manufacturing and purchases. The Biden administration said when it made the rules, they would save almost 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050. Alexa St. John, Associated Press climate solutions reporter The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Category:
E-Commerce
A year after the launch of the short-lived Coca-Cola Spiced, Coke is adding another new flavor to its lineup. Coca-Cola Orange Cream is scheduled to go on sale Feb. 10 in the U.S. and Canada. It will be sold in regular and zero sugar varieties. Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Co. said Monday that it developed the soda, which mixes cola with orange and vanilla flavors, in response to growing consumer demand for the comforting, nostalgic flavor. Orange cream first introduced with the Creamsicle ice cream bar in 1937 has enjoyed a recent renaissance. Olipop, a probiotic soda, introduced an orange cream flavor in 2021. Carvel reintroduced its Orange Dreamy Creamy ice cream last year for the first time since 1972. Wendys also debuted an Orange Dreamsicle Frosty last spring. Coca-Cola has been experimenting with new flavors to help keep customers engaged with its signature product. In 2022, it launched Coca-Cola Creations, a series of limited-edition Coke flavors in colorful cans and bottles. Coke added hints of coconut, strawberry and even Oreos to the drinks. The company introduced raspberry-flavored Coca-Cola Spiced last February, saying the offering would be a permanent addition to its lineup. But the company abruptly pulled Coca-Cola Spiced off the market in September, saying it would be replaced with a new flavor this year. Coke said Coca-Cola Orange Cream wont be a permanent flavor but would remain on sale at least through the first quarter of 2026. In an interview last year, Coca-Colas North American marketing chief, Shakir Moin, said it used to take the company at least a year to develop a new product. But it’s trying to move more quickly. Consumers are moving faster. The market is moving forward faster. Weve got to be faster than the speed of the market, he said. Dee-Ann Durbin, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||