zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
> The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft over claims the companies built their AI models by “copying and using millions” of the publication’s articles and now “directly compete” with the outlet’s content.

Millions? Damn, they can churn out some content. 13 million[0]!.

[0] https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter....

>>batch1+D2

  “Through Microsoft’s Bing Chat (recently rebranded as “Copilot”) and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Defendants seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism by using it to build substitutive products without permission or payment,” the lawsuit states.

I can't be the only one that sees the irony of this news being "reported" and regurgitated over dozens of crappy blogs.

  ChatGPT [..] “can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.”

If the NYT thinks that GPT-4 is replicating their style then [as anybody who has tried to do creative writing work with GPT-4 can testify to] they need to fire all their writers.

>>laborc+U4
> More on-topic: if the NYT thinks that GPT-4 is replicating their style then [as anybody who has tried to do creative writing work can testify to] they need to fire all their writers.

The complaint isn’t that ChatGPT is imitating New York Times style by default.

The complaint is that you can ask it to write “in the style of New York Times” and it will do so.

I don’t know if this argument has any legal merit, but it’s not as simple as you suggest. It’s the textual parallel to having AI image generators mimic the trademark style of artists. We know it can be done, the question is what does it mean legally.