It could go either way. Since others have laid out why it might benefit other countries, I'll lay out why it might benefit the US, from the perspective of an ML

It could go either way. Since others have laid out why it might benefit other countries, I'll lay out why it might benefit the US, from the perspective of an ML researcher since long before the hype arrived. AI is only useful in so far as it's grounded in reality. If you ask it how tall the empire state building is, the answer has to be in some way derived from how tall it really is. Even creative writing is only useful in so far as how it's grounded in real life human experience. This is all to say that a bunch of people need to keep writing stuff about the real world for models to keep up with the real world. I'd say the ideal scenario for US AI development is: 1) People keep making high quality data grounded in real world USA 2) That data is easily accessible for research purposes 3) That data is usable for commercial purposes (but might require more work than for research purposes) A ruling for NYT here might keep good data more widely produced and available. Research legality is almost surely not going to be affected, so keeping data produced and available is key to keeping domestic research going strong and keeping talent here. A ruling against NYT might mean all the new grounded-in-reality data goes behind closed doors. And even though the legality of research isn't in question, that would make the research harder. It would be easier to commercially use what you can find, but it could be garbage-in-garbage-out in the sense of quality data becoming hidden.