3 ms·

This is a huge strawman argument that entirely ignores the heart of the issue. NYTimes, and other contributors to ChatGPT, should be compensated for their role

This is a huge strawman argument that entirely ignores the heart of the issue. NYTimes, and other contributors to ChatGPT, should be compensated for their role in creating ChatGPT. It’s not as simple as quoting or not quoting, ChatGPT’s existence depends on its source material entirely. OpenAI and Microsoft are making money off of that source material. If the source was copyrighted, OpenAI/Microsoft need to compensate the owners. Also, you can’t quote an entire article in a paper. You quote snippets, but ChatGPT is reproducing entire articles.

canjobear 3y ago
Unless it’s fair use, which ChatGPT seems to be because it is transformative.
throwaway4aday 3y ago
They're playing a dangerous game. While they are currently one source of many they could easily be excluded from the training data and it won't make a dent in the capability of the model. Attempting to get payment for use of their data is a very short term viewpoint since the vast majority of written training data is likely to be synthetic going forward. They should be angling for citations and referrals back to their content so that they keep the current benefits they get from search engines after a large chunk of search gets replaced by LLMs.