The Old-School Library at OpenAI
A prevailing sentiment among “book people” is that ChatGPT should cause consternation and hand-wringing. I get that. But while technology and automation may be replacing some jobs, I still don’t think it can replace the job of a novelist. Well, let me rephrase: There are some sorts of books that, yes, could likely be written using AI. Mostly, the dubious part in my eyes is copyright infringement. (And also that you can’t cut-and-paste emotion!)
I’m trying to figure out the motivation behind this (admittedly very cool) NYT interactive feature on the library in OpenAI’s SF HQ: “The Old-Fashioned Library at the Heart of the A.I. Boom.” (It’s a neat piece to toggle around!) Apparently Sam Altman, Chief Executive of OpenAI (creator of ChatGPT), wanted to model part of his company’s HQ after famous libraries/reading rooms and has also stocked this library with titles suggested by employees. True innovation springs from the interplay of “art” + “science,” and this inspiring space hints at that.
But it doesn’t dodge the controversy mentioned above: “The library … represents the paradox at the heart of OpenAI’s technology. Authors and publishers, including The New York Times, are suing OpenAI, claiming the company illegally used their copyrighted content to build its A.I. systems.” OpenAI stans (including employees) argue that the way ChatGPT uses these texts falls under the “fair use” statute of copyright law. Work is covered under “fair use” if it references an original work to create something “new.”
This seems to be pushing it a bit. Lifting illegally uploaded words is not “literary fan fiction,” as another recent NYT piece dissected with regard to current hits such as James by Percival Everett (recalling Twain) or Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver (recalling Dickens). In that one, A.O. Scott writes that “Without imitation, our literature would be threadbare.” This is absolutely true. (Shakespeare, anyone?) But I feel like this is different — especially since the works of Twain and Dickens are now in the public domain.
{But for real, I’m fascinated that the NYT published this feature on a company it is suing...}
originally published on instagram