NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

Post by lesuorac » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

Kon-Peki wrote: post #660

> Because the outputs of Defendants’ GenAI models compete with and closely mimic the inputs used to train them, copying Times works for that purpose is not fair use. This is interesting. The NYT is specifically saying that the way you use an LLM impacts what you can legally use for training the LLM. They're firing shots at the big guys trying to sell access to an LLM, but not at the little guy self-hosting for fun or…

Post by Zpalmtree » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

whoopsie wrote: post #173

cornel_io wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could find a single person who in natural use (e.g. not as they were trying to gather data for this lawsuit) has ever actually used ChatGPT as a direct substitution for a NYT subscription, I'd support this lawsuit. But nobody would do that, because ChatGPT is a really shitty way to read NYT articles (it's stale, it can't reliably reproduce them, etc.). All that is valuable about it is the way that it transfor…

That’s nonsense piracy. I never intend to own a truck, so when I need to haul a little something I go to Home Depot and steal a Ford off the lot for an hour? What if I stole all your commits, plucked the hard lines out of the ceremony, and then launched an equivalent feature the same week as you did, but for a competing software company? Would you or your employer deserve to get paid for my use of the slice of your w…

Post by freejazz » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #580

rich_sasha wrote: post #111

If you forget about the LLM aspect, and simply build a product out of (legally) scraped NYT articles, is that fair use? Let's say I host these, offer some indexing on it, and rewrite articles. Something like, summarise all articles on US-UK relationships over past 5 years. I charge money for it, and all I pay NYT is a monthly subscription fee. To keep things simple, let's say I never regurgitate chunks of verbatim NY…

What you described is entirely fair use, actually. Not only that, look at a few news articles from Tier 2 and down publications, and you'll realize that almost all of them are directly sourced from NYT and others. They'll say "so and so happened, according to The Times" (and usually link the article there)

Post by 4death4 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 6:14 PM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #613

4death4 wrote: post #368

I think there is a national security aspect to ML models trained on copyrighted data. Countries that allow it will gain a superior technological advantage and outcompete those who disallow training on copyrighted material. I personally believe training LLMs on copyrighted data is copyright infringement if the models are deployed in a way that competes with the copyright holder. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s…

You can say the same for any legal enforcement like respecting patent or copyright law or making Champagne outside France. Yet the sky isn’t falling given this reality with so many legally protected industries. Maybe these markets where such an industry might offshore to are too small and insular to be very significant, and are probably language bound to make english models less relevant compared to native language m…

Post by Powdering7082 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 6:17 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #580

rich_sasha wrote: post #111

If you forget about the LLM aspect, and simply build a product out of (legally) scraped NYT articles, is that fair use? Let's say I host these, offer some indexing on it, and rewrite articles. Something like, summarise all articles on US-UK relationships over past 5 years. I charge money for it, and all I pay NYT is a monthly subscription fee. To keep things simple, let's say I never regurgitate chunks of verbatim NY…

What you described is entirely fair use, actually. Not only that, look at a few news articles from Tier 2 and down publications, and you'll realize that almost all of them are directly sourced from NYT and others. They'll say "so and so happened, according to The Times" (and usually link the article there)