Just because you get ChatGPT to reproduce an article because you yourself provided excerpts of the article to it doesn't mean it infringed on the content. If an

Just because you get ChatGPT to reproduce an article because you yourself provided excerpts of the article to it doesn't mean it infringed on the content. If anything you did. This is a fundamentally incorrect statement of the facts as they exist in the real world. OpenAI admits that the NYT article was in their training set, they are taking issue with the means the NYT used to prove that their article was part of the training set and reproducible as a response to a prompt. I repeat: the NYT prompts did not "put" the article into the LLM; it was already there waiting to be extracted. Furthermore, the NYT methodology is irrelevant to the copyright case. The technology underlying the LLM is irrelevant to the copyright case. All of these claims might earn brownie points on the internet, but they are completely irrelevant to the court case in the real world. What matters is that the NYT article was copied without permission, and whether OpenAI can claim a fair use exception to do so. the fact they haven't released it so far, they are definitely not confident of their position and are hoping for a settlement. This is not how the legal process works in general, and it's not how copyright cases work in particular. (Things like "methodology" get disclosed during the discovery stage, not the complaint stage. This is how trials have worked in the U.S. for over two centuries...) Yes, the NYT is hoping for a settlement. They want OpenAI to license their articles. They were upfront about that from the beginning. It was OpenAI's refusal to license the NYT articles that prompted the lawsuit.