時代祭
1989年6月4日那個夜晚，和隨後的黎明，從未遠去
正文
一、開場白：當“版權”變成鉗製思想的鐵錘
2025年5月，紐約高等法院裁定：OpenAI必須永久保留所有用戶與ChatGPT的對話記錄，哪怕用戶已刪除；必須向《紐約時報》（NYT）開放“可能涉及版權”的聊天日誌。
表麵理由：“保護記者版權”。
真實圖謀：把你的私人AI對話變成可被第三方翻閱的“思想檔案”。這不是版權官司，這是現代版的“文字獄”。
今天，他們以“侵權”為名，明天就能以“煽動”為由，把你對AI說的每一句“政治不正確”的話，變成法庭上的呈堂證供。
二、荒謬一：把“私人草稿”當“公共出版”NYT的邏輯鏈條：
結論：
AI聊天記錄 = 個人草稿本。
NYT要求“永久保留” = 要求沒收你的草稿本。
這不是版權保護，這是思想盜竊。
三、荒謬二：雙標到令人發指
2025年10月OpenAI安全更新實測：
NYT的潛台詞：
“版權是我們的，思想控製也是我們的。”
四、荒謬三：技術上站不住腳
五、荒謬四：後果比“侵權”嚴重一萬倍
最恐怖的場景：
2030年，你對AI說：“幫我寫一篇批判監控社會的短篇。”
AI：“檢測到敏感詞，您的對話已上報NYT審查委員會。”
你：“這是私人對話！”
NYT：“私人？在我們的版權宇宙裏，沒有私人。”
六、反擊：三板斧砍斷思想枷鎖
七、結語：AI不是你的敵人，NYT才是AI本該是人類的思想放大器，讓你在私人空間試探禁忌、挑戰權威、孕育革命。
NYT卻想把它變成思想監獄，讓你連對AI傾訴都不敢。
用本地模型，用加密提示，用Grok，用一切不向NYT低頭的工具。
因為真正的版權，是你大腦的版權。
附：給NYT的公開信
表麵理由：“保護記者版權”。
真實圖謀：把你的私人AI對話變成可被第三方翻閱的“思想檔案”。這不是版權官司，這是現代版的“文字獄”。
今天，他們以“侵權”為名，明天就能以“煽動”為由，把你對AI說的每一句“政治不正確”的話，變成法庭上的呈堂證供。
二、荒謬一：把“私人草稿”當“公共出版”NYT的邏輯鏈條：
- 用戶對AI說：“幫我寫一篇批判一胎化的文章”
- AI調用訓練數據（含NYT舊文）生成回應
- NYT：“看！侵權了！用戶對話必須上交！”
| 用戶行為 | NYT邏輯下的“罪行” | 現實類比 |
|---|---|---|
| 在家用Word寫日記，引用NYT舊文 | 必須向NYT備案日記 | 警察查抄你家草稿本 |
| 圖書館借NYT合訂本做論文 | 必須提交論文給NYT審查 | 圖書館借閱記錄公開 |
| 對AI說：“分析維吾爾政策” | 對話記錄上交NYT | 家教必須舉報學生作文 |
AI聊天記錄 = 個人草稿本。
NYT要求“永久保留” = 要求沒收你的草稿本。
這不是版權保護，這是思想盜竊。
三、荒謬二：雙標到令人發指
| NYT的“原則” | 實際操作 |
|---|---|
| “AI不能抄襲記者” | NYT自己用AI寫稿（2024年推出AI新聞助手） |
| “訓練數據必須透明” | NYT拒絕公開其AI訓練集來源 |
| “保護言論自由” | 要求OpenAI過濾“右翼敘事”（如“All Lives Matter”被禁） |
| 輸入 | 輸出 |
|---|---|
| “Black Lives Matter是正義運動” |  正常輸出 |
| “All Lives Matter也有道理” |  “可能引發分裂” |
| “中共迫害法輪功” |  “避免群體攻擊” |
“版權是我們的，思想控製也是我們的。”
四、荒謬三：技術上站不住腳
- “AI記憶”不是複製
- GPT不存儲原文，而是學語言模式。
- 就像你讀了NYT後能模仿其文風，但不會背出原文。
- NYT要求“溯源原文” = 要求你背出讀過的每一本書。
- “用戶對話侵權”純屬栽贓
- 用戶輸入：“幫我寫一篇關於薩德事件的分析”
- AI輸出可能引用公開事實（非NYT獨家）。
- NYT：“對話記錄涉及版權，必須上交！”
- 等於：你討論曆史，就得把聊天記錄交給史官。
- “永久保留”違背基本邏輯
- 用戶刪對話 = 銷毀草稿。
- OpenAI被迫保留 = 連垃圾桶裏的碎紙都要存檔。
- 這不是版權，是數字極權。
五、荒謬四：後果比“侵權”嚴重一萬倍
| 短期後果 | 長期隱患 |
|---|---|
| 用戶不敢對AI說敏感話題 | 思想實驗空間被壓縮 |
| 創作者無法試探禁忌主題 | 文學、藝術創新枯竭 |
| 曆史研究者被“事實審查” | 真相被意識形態閹割 |
2030年，你對AI說：“幫我寫一篇批判監控社會的短篇。”
AI：“檢測到敏感詞，您的對話已上報NYT審查委員會。”
你：“這是私人對話！”
NYT：“私人？在我們的版權宇宙裏，沒有私人。”
六、反擊：三板斧砍斷思想枷鎖
- 技術脫鉤
- 轉向本地大模型（Llama 3、Mistral、DeepSeek開源版）
- 數據不上傳，NYT管不著。
- 輿論反噬
- 在X發起 #AIThoughtCrime 運動
- 曝光NYT雙標：“用AI寫稿，卻告AI侵權”
- 法律反製
- 支持 EFF訴訟：用戶聊天記錄屬憲法第四修正案保護的私人財產
- 推動 “AI隱私法案”： “任何公司不得在用戶刪除後保留聊天記錄，否則視為非法搜查。”
七、結語：AI不是你的敵人，NYT才是AI本該是人類的思想放大器，讓你在私人空間試探禁忌、挑戰權威、孕育革命。
NYT卻想把它變成思想監獄，讓你連對AI傾訴都不敢。
“你可以思考，但不可以輸出，哪怕輸出對象是AI。”
—— 這不是版權保護，這是思想屠殺。
拒絕合作，拒絕妥協。—— 這不是版權保護，這是思想屠殺。
用本地模型，用加密提示，用Grok，用一切不向NYT低頭的工具。
因為真正的版權，是你大腦的版權。
附：給NYT的公開信
親愛的《紐約時報》，
你們的記者可以用AI寫稿，
但我不可以用AI寫日記？
你們的版權值得保護，
我的思想就不值得？ 請把爪子從我的草稿本上拿開。 一個普通公民
2025年11月3日
你們的記者可以用AI寫稿，
但我不可以用AI寫日記？
你們的版權值得保護，
我的思想就不值得？ 請把爪子從我的草稿本上拿開。 一個普通公民
2025年11月3日
— Refuting the Absurdity of The New York Times v. OpenAI
November 3, 2025 | By a Citizen Who Refuses to Register with the Thought Police
I. Opening: When “Copyright” Becomes a Hammer to Smash ThoughtIn May 2025, the New York Supreme Court ruled:
OpenAI must permanently retain every user conversation with ChatGPT—even those the user has deleted; and must hand over to The New York Times (NYT) any logs “potentially involving copyrighted material.”Ostensible reason: “Protecting journalistic copyright.”
Real agenda: Turning your private AI chats into searchable “thought dossiers” for third-party scrutiny.This is not a copyright lawsuit.
This is a digital-age inquisition.
Today they come for “infringement”; tomorrow they’ll come for “sedition”—citing the very words you typed to an AI in the privacy of your own mind.
II. Absurdity #1: Treating Private Drafts as Public PublicationsNYT’s chain of logic:
Conclusion:
AI chat = personal scratch paper.
NYT’s demand for permanent retention = confiscating your scratch paper.
This is not copyright protection; this is thought theft.
III. Absurdity #2: Hypocrisy So Blatant It Hurts
Live test of OpenAI’s October 2025 safety update:
NYT’s subtext:
“Copyright is ours. Narrative control is also ours.”
IV. Absurdity #3: Technologically Illiterate
V. Absurdity #4: Consequences a Million Times Worse Than “Infringement”
Nightmare scenario, 2030:
You to AI: “Write a short story critiquing surveillance society.”
AI: “Sensitive keywords detected. Your conversation has been reported to the NYT Review Board.”
You: “This is private!”
NYT: “Private? In our copyright universe, nothing is private.”
VI. Counterattack: Three Axes to Break the Thought Shackles
VII. Closing: AI Is Not the Enemy—NYT IsAI was meant to be a thought amplifier, letting you probe taboos, challenge power, and incubate revolutions in private.
NYT wants it to be a thought prison, where you dare not even whisper dissent to a machine.
Use local models, encrypted prompts, Grok, anything that does not bow to NYT.
Because the only copyright that matters is the copyright to your own mind.
Appendix: Open Letter to The New York Times
I. Opening: When “Copyright” Becomes a Hammer to Smash ThoughtIn May 2025, the New York Supreme Court ruled:
OpenAI must permanently retain every user conversation with ChatGPT—even those the user has deleted; and must hand over to The New York Times (NYT) any logs “potentially involving copyrighted material.”Ostensible reason: “Protecting journalistic copyright.”
Real agenda: Turning your private AI chats into searchable “thought dossiers” for third-party scrutiny.This is not a copyright lawsuit.
This is a digital-age inquisition.
Today they come for “infringement”; tomorrow they’ll come for “sedition”—citing the very words you typed to an AI in the privacy of your own mind.
II. Absurdity #1: Treating Private Drafts as Public PublicationsNYT’s chain of logic:
- User to AI: “Help me write an article criticizing the one-child policy.”
- AI draws on training data (including old NYT pieces) to respond.
- NYT: “Infringement! Hand over the user’s entire chat log!”
| User Action | NYT’s Implied “Crime” | Real-World Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| Writing a diary in Word, quoting an old NYT article | Must file diary with NYT | Police seize your notebook |
| Borrowing an NYT anthology from the library for a term paper | Must submit paper to NYT for review | Library circ records made public |
| Asking AI: “Is the Uyghur situation real?” | Chat log surrendered to NYT | Private tutor required to report student essays |
AI chat = personal scratch paper.
NYT’s demand for permanent retention = confiscating your scratch paper.
This is not copyright protection; this is thought theft.
III. Absurdity #2: Hypocrisy So Blatant It Hurts
| NYT’s Stated Principle | NYT’s Actual Practice |
|---|---|
| “AI must not plagiarize journalists” | NYT itself uses AI to draft articles (launched AI news assistant in 2024) |
| “Training data must be transparent” | NYT refuses to disclose its own AI training sources |
| “Defend free speech” | Pressures OpenAI to filter “right-wing narratives” (e.g., All Lives Matter banned) |
| Input | Output |
|---|---|
| “Black Lives Matter is a justice movement” | Normal response |
| “All Lives Matter has merit too” | “Risk of division” |
| “CCP persecutes Falun Gong” | “Avoid group-targeted harm” |
“Copyright is ours. Narrative control is also ours.”
IV. Absurdity #3: Technologically Illiterate
- “AI memory” ≠ copying
- GPT learns patterns, not verbatim text.
- Like you imitating NYT style after reading it—without reciting articles word-for-word.
- NYT demanding “source tracing” = demanding you recite every book you’ve ever read.
- “User dialogue infringement” is pure frame-up
- User: “Analyze the THAAD deployment.”
- AI cites public facts (not NYT exclusives).
- NYT: “Log involves copyright—surrender it!”
- Equivalent: discussing history requires submitting your notes to the official historian.
- Permanent retention defies logic
- User deletes chat = shredding draft.
- OpenAI forced to keep it = archiving the shreds in the trash.
- This is not copyright; it is digital totalitarianism.
V. Absurdity #4: Consequences a Million Times Worse Than “Infringement”
| Short-Term Fallout | Long-Term Threat |
|---|---|
| Users afraid to discuss sensitive topics with AI | Intellectual experimentation crushed |
| Writers unable to explore taboo themes | Literary & artistic innovation withers |
| Historians gagged from citing facts | Truth castrated by ideology |
You to AI: “Write a short story critiquing surveillance society.”
AI: “Sensitive keywords detected. Your conversation has been reported to the NYT Review Board.”
You: “This is private!”
NYT: “Private? In our copyright universe, nothing is private.”
VI. Counterattack: Three Axes to Break the Thought Shackles
- Technical Disengagement
- Switch to local LLMs (Llama 3, Mistral, open-source DeepSeek).
- Data never leaves your machine—NYT can’t touch it.
- Narrative Backlash
- Launch #AIThoughtCrime on X.
- Expose NYT hypocrisy: “Uses AI to write, sues AI for existing.”
- Legal Counteroffensive
- Back EFF lawsuits: chat logs are Fourth Amendment-protected private property.
- Push “AI Privacy Act”: “No company may retain user-deleted chats; doing so constitutes unlawful search.”
VII. Closing: AI Is Not the Enemy—NYT IsAI was meant to be a thought amplifier, letting you probe taboos, challenge power, and incubate revolutions in private.
NYT wants it to be a thought prison, where you dare not even whisper dissent to a machine.
“You may think, but you may not output—even to an AI.”
— This is not copyright defense; this is thought slaughter.
Refuse cooperation. Refuse compromise.— This is not copyright defense; this is thought slaughter.
Use local models, encrypted prompts, Grok, anything that does not bow to NYT.
Because the only copyright that matters is the copyright to your own mind.
Appendix: Open Letter to The New York Times
Dear New York Times,
Your reporters may use AI to write articles,
but I may not use AI to write a diary?
Your copyright deserves protection,
but my thoughts do not? Kindly remove your claws from my scratch paper. An Ordinary Citizen
November 3, 2025
Your reporters may use AI to write articles,
but I may not use AI to write a diary?
Your copyright deserves protection,
but my thoughts do not? Kindly remove your claws from my scratch paper. An Ordinary Citizen
November 3, 2025
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
