3 ms·

Its buried on page 37 - #108. There probably are other examples in the lawsuit but this is sufficent. > Synthetic search applications built on the GPT LLMs, in

Its buried on page 37 - #108. There probably are other examples in the lawsuit but this is sufficent. > Synthetic search applications built on the GPT LLMs, including Bing Chat and Browse with Bing for ChatGPT, display extensive excerpts or paraphrases of the contents of search results, including Times content, that may not have been included in the model’s training set. The “grounding” technique employed by these products includes receiving a prompt from a user, copying Times content relating to the prompt from the internet, providing the prompt together with the copied Times content as additional context for the LLM, and having the LLM stitch together paraphrases or quotes from the copied Times content to create natural-language substitutes that serve the same informative purpose as the original. In some cases, Defendants’ models simply spit out several paragraphs of The Times’s articles. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/1/the-new-york-times-company-v-microsoft-corporation/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68117049/1/the-new-york...

simonw 3y ago
Oh I see - yeah, that's the part of the lawsuit that's about Bing and ChatGPT Browse mode retrieval augmented generation. It's a separate issue from the fact that the model can regurgitate it's NYT training data. There's a section on page 63 which helps clarify that: Defendants materially contributed to and directly assisted with the direct infringement perpetrated by end-users of the GPT-based products by way of: (i) jointly-developing LLM models capable of distributing unlicensed copies of Times Works to end-users; (ii) building and training the GPT LLMs using Times Works; and (iii) deciding what content is actually outputted by the GenAI products, such as grounding output in Times Works through retrieval augmented generation, fine-tuning the models for desired outcomes, and/or selecting and weighting the parameters of the GPT LLMs. So they are complaining about models that are capable of distributing unlicensed copies (the regurgitated training data issue), the fact that the models were trained on NYT work at all, and the fact that the RAG implementation in Bing and ChatGPT Browse further creates "natural-language substitutes that serve the same informative purpose as the original".

simonw 3y ago

Oh I see - yeah, that's the part of the lawsuit that's about Bing and ChatGPT Browse mode retrieval augmented generation. It's a separate issue from the fact that the model can regurgitate it's NYT training data. There's a section on page 63 which helps clarify that: Defendants materially contributed to and directly assisted with the direct infringement perpetrated by end-users of the GPT-based products by way of: (i) jointly-developing LLM models capable of distributing unlicensed copies of Times Works to end-users; (ii) building and training the GPT LLMs using Times Works; and (iii) deciding what content is actually outputted by the GenAI products, such as grounding output in Times Works through retrieval augmented generation, fine-tuning the models for desired outcomes, and/or selecting and weighting the parameters of the GPT LLMs. So they are complaining about models that are capable of distributing unlicensed copies (the regurgitated training data issue), the fact that the models were trained on NYT work at all, and the fact that the RAG implementation in Bing and ChatGPT Browse further creates "natural-language substitutes that serve the same informative purpose as the original".