4 ms·

>NYT is alleging that OpenAI maintains a database of NYT works and refers to it verbatim (per-prompt) as part of the ChatGPT software and not via some pre-train

>NYT is alleging that OpenAI maintains a database of NYT works and refers to it verbatim (per-prompt) as part of the ChatGPT software and not via some pre-trained wieghts. So if ChatGPT didn't refer to it verbatim and if ChatGPT trained on it and mixed it with other content, NYT would be OK with that? Tbh I don't get it. Edit: I found this in my bookmarks archive - https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/08/15/2242238/nyt-prohibits-using-its-content-to-train-ai-models https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/08/15/2242238/nyt-prohibi... Also this: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/universal-music-sues-anthropic-for-copyright-infringement-over-lyrics.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/universal-music-sues-anthrop...

lesuorac 3y ago
It depends on the purpose of ChatGPT. If people use it as a substitute for the NYT then yes I suspect NYT will be not ok with it. I think also the courts will also side with NYT. Very recently there was a copyright case involving Andy Warhol [1] which he lost. Despite the artwork being visually transformative; it's use was not transformative. So, to me that means if you create a program using NYT's materials that is used as a replacement for NYT it will not count as fair use. Obviously you could just do what say Google does and fork money over to NYT for some license. However, my initial point is that this is a tangent. NYT has claimed that OpenAI is using NYT's works at least as-is and so OpenAI can just be nailed for that. Which is my point about FTX; it's irrelevant if their exchange was legal since you can just nail them for mis-use of customer funds. Another example would be Al Capone; it doesn't matter if he's a mobster because you can nail him for tax evasion. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-warhol-supreme-court-prince-photograph/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-warhol-supreme-court-princ...
- mrkramer 3y ago
  I think this is more of a question of licensing content, sooner or later AI chat bots will have to license at least some of the content they are trained on. But broadly speaking this is also the question of the "Open Web" and will it survive or not. Walled gardens like Facebook, Instagram etc. are strong and pervasive but still majority of people use and acknowledge publicly open websites from the Open Web. If AI chat bots do not drive traffic to websites then they are walled gardens and Microsoft, Google or whoever will lock users in and try to squeeze them for money.

lesuorac 3y ago

It depends on the purpose of ChatGPT. If people use it as a substitute for the NYT then yes I suspect NYT will be not ok with it. I think also the courts will also side with NYT. Very recently there was a copyright case involving Andy Warhol [1] which he lost. Despite the artwork being visually transformative; it's use was not transformative. So, to me that means if you create a program using NYT's materials that is used as a replacement for NYT it will not count as fair use. Obviously you could just do what say Google does and fork money over to NYT for some license. However, my initial point is that this is a tangent. NYT has claimed that OpenAI is using NYT's works at least as-is and so OpenAI can just be nailed for that. Which is my point about FTX; it's irrelevant if their exchange was legal since you can just nail them for mis-use of customer funds. Another example would be Al Capone; it doesn't matter if he's a mobster because you can nail him for tax evasion. [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-warhol-supreme-court-prince-photograph/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-warhol-supreme-court-princ...

mrkramer 3y ago
I think this is more of a question of licensing content, sooner or later AI chat bots will have to license at least some of the content they are trained on. But broadly speaking this is also the question of the "Open Web" and will it survive or not. Walled gardens like Facebook, Instagram etc. are strong and pervasive but still majority of people use and acknowledge publicly open websites from the Open Web. If AI chat bots do not drive traffic to websites then they are walled gardens and Microsoft, Google or whoever will lock users in and try to squeeze them for money.