> It is also difficult to see how ChatGPT is competing with NYT If I'm interested in Dick Cheney shooting someone by accident, and previously I would have goog

> It is also difficult to see how ChatGPT is competing with NYT If I'm interested in Dick Cheney shooting someone by accident, and previously I would have googled that and been sent to NYT reporting on the incident (and get shown some ads or sold a subscription) but instead I ask ChatGPT - that seems like a competing product to me. And fair use is a multi-pronged test - ChatGPT's use of the data is clearly of a commercial nature, and the portion of the copyrighted work used for training is presumably 100%. So while Wikipedia can quote an NYT article (being both noncommercial and a short excerpt) the court could well consider LLM training more in the nature of music sampling, where at times it's been held that even minuscule two second excerpts, distorted and mixed in with lots of other music, still need to be licensed.