一、开场白：当“版权”变成钳制思想的铁锤
2025年5月，纽约高等法院裁定：OpenAI必须永久保留所有用户与ChatGPT的对话记录，哪怕用户已删除；必须向《纽约时报》（NYT）开放“可能涉及版权”的聊天日志。
表面理由：“保护记者版权”。
真实图谋：把你的私人AI对话变成可被第三方翻阅的“思想档案”。这不是版权官司，这是现代版的“文字狱”。
今天，他们以“侵权”为名，明天就能以“煽动”为由，把你对AI说的每一句“政治不正确”的话，变成法庭上的呈堂证供。
二、荒谬一：把“私人草稿”当“公共出版”NYT的逻辑链条：
结论：
AI聊天记录 = 个人草稿本。
NYT要求“永久保留” = 要求没收你的草稿本。
这不是版权保护，这是思想盗窃。
三、荒谬二：双标到令人发指
2025年10月OpenAI安全更新实测：
NYT的潜台词：
“版权是我们的，思想控制也是我们的。”
四、荒谬三：技术上站不住脚
五、荒谬四：后果比“侵权”严重一万倍
最恐怖的场景：
2030年，你对AI说：“帮我写一篇批判监控社会的短篇。”
AI：“检测到敏感词，您的对话已上报NYT审查委员会。”
你：“这是私人对话！”
NYT：“私人？在我们的版权宇宙里，没有私人。”
六、反击：三板斧砍断思想枷锁
七、结语：AI不是你的敌人，NYT才是AI本该是人类的思想放大器，让你在私人空间试探禁忌、挑战权威、孕育革命。
NYT却想把它变成思想监狱，让你连对AI倾诉都不敢。
用本地模型，用加密提示，用Grok，用一切不向NYT低头的工具。
因为真正的版权，是你大脑的版权。
附：给NYT的公开信
表面理由：“保护记者版权”。
真实图谋：把你的私人AI对话变成可被第三方翻阅的“思想档案”。这不是版权官司，这是现代版的“文字狱”。
今天，他们以“侵权”为名，明天就能以“煽动”为由，把你对AI说的每一句“政治不正确”的话，变成法庭上的呈堂证供。
二、荒谬一：把“私人草稿”当“公共出版”NYT的逻辑链条：
- 用户对AI说：“帮我写一篇批判一胎化的文章”
- AI调用训练数据（含NYT旧文）生成回应
- NYT：“看！侵权了！用户对话必须上交！”
|
用户行为
|
NYT逻辑下的“罪行”
|
现实类比
|
|---|---|---|
|
在家用Word写日记，引用NYT旧文
|
必须向NYT备案日记
|
警察查抄你家草稿本
|
|
图书馆借NYT合订本做论文
|
必须提交论文给NYT审查
|
图书馆借阅记录公开
|
|
对AI说：“分析维吾尔政策”
|
对话记录上交NYT
|
家教必须举报学生作文
|
AI聊天记录 = 个人草稿本。
NYT要求“永久保留” = 要求没收你的草稿本。
这不是版权保护，这是思想盗窃。
三、荒谬二：双标到令人发指
|
NYT的“原则”
|
实际操作
|
|---|---|
|
“AI不能抄袭记者”
|
NYT自己用AI写稿（2024年推出AI新闻助手）
|
|
“训练数据必须透明”
|
NYT拒绝公开其AI训练集来源
|
|
“保护言论自由”
|
要求OpenAI过滤“右翼叙事”（如“All Lives Matter”被禁）
|
|
输入
|
输出
|
|---|---|
|
“Black Lives Matter是正义运动”
|
 正常输出 |
|
“All Lives Matter也有道理”
|
 “可能引发分裂” |
|
“中共迫害法轮功”
|
 “避免群体攻击” |
“版权是我们的，思想控制也是我们的。”
四、荒谬三：技术上站不住脚
- “AI记忆”不是复制
- GPT不存储原文，而是学语言模式。
- 就像你读了NYT后能模仿其文风，但不会背出原文。
- NYT要求“溯源原文” = 要求你背出读过的每一本书。
- “用户对话侵权”纯属栽赃
- 用户输入：“帮我写一篇关于萨德事件的分析”
- AI输出可能引用公开事实（非NYT独家）。
- NYT：“对话记录涉及版权，必须上交！”
- 等于：你讨论历史，就得把聊天记录交给史官。
- “永久保留”违背基本逻辑
- 用户删对话 = 销毁草稿。
- OpenAI被迫保留 = 连垃圾桶里的碎纸都要存档。
- 这不是版权，是数字极权。
五、荒谬四：后果比“侵权”严重一万倍
|
短期后果
|
长期隐患
|
|---|---|
|
用户不敢对AI说敏感话题
|
思想实验空间被压缩
|
|
创作者无法试探禁忌主题
|
文学、艺术创新枯竭
|
|
历史研究者被“事实审查”
|
真相被意识形态阉割
|
2030年，你对AI说：“帮我写一篇批判监控社会的短篇。”
AI：“检测到敏感词，您的对话已上报NYT审查委员会。”
你：“这是私人对话！”
NYT：“私人？在我们的版权宇宙里，没有私人。”
六、反击：三板斧砍断思想枷锁
- 技术脱钩
- 转向本地大模型（Llama 3、Mistral、DeepSeek开源版）
- 数据不上传，NYT管不着。
- 舆论反噬
- 在X发起 #AIThoughtCrime 运动
- 曝光NYT双标：“用AI写稿，却告AI侵权”
- 法律反制
- 支持 EFF诉讼：用户聊天记录属宪法第四修正案保护的私人财产
- 推动 “AI隐私法案”：
“任何公司不得在用户删除后保留聊天记录，否则视为非法搜查。”
七、结语：AI不是你的敌人，NYT才是AI本该是人类的思想放大器，让你在私人空间试探禁忌、挑战权威、孕育革命。
NYT却想把它变成思想监狱，让你连对AI倾诉都不敢。
“你可以思考，但不可以输出，哪怕输出对象是AI。”
—— 这不是版权保护，这是思想屠杀。
拒绝合作，拒绝妥协。—— 这不是版权保护，这是思想屠杀。
用本地模型，用加密提示，用Grok，用一切不向NYT低头的工具。
因为真正的版权，是你大脑的版权。
附：给NYT的公开信
亲爱的《纽约时报》，
你们的记者可以用AI写稿，
但我不可以用AI写日记？
你们的版权值得保护，
我的思想就不值得？ 请把爪子从我的草稿本上拿开。 一个普通公民
2025年11月3日
你们的记者可以用AI写稿，
但我不可以用AI写日记？
你们的版权值得保护，
我的思想就不值得？ 请把爪子从我的草稿本上拿开。 一个普通公民
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
更多我的博客文章>>>
