zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
The arguments about being able to mimic New York Times “style” are weak, but the fact that they got it to emit verbatim NY Times content seems bad for OpenAI:

> As outlined in the lawsuit, the Times alleges OpenAI and Microsoft’s large language models (LLMs), which power ChatGPT and Copilot, “can generate output that recites Times content verbatim

>>Aurorn+84
I can get a printer to emit verbatim NYT content, and with a lot less effort than getting it out of an LLM. I find this capability of infringement equals infringement argument incredibly weak.

>>fallin+07
Try selling subscriptions to your print-outs.

>>mrkeen+x7
The equivalent analogy here is selling subscriptions to the printer, not the specific copyright infringing printout.

>>jncfhn+b8
I disagree. A printer is too neutral - it's just a tool, like roads or the internet. Third parties can use them to commit copyright infringement, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) reflect on the seller of the tool.

I propose it's more like selling a music player that comes preloaded with (remixes of) recording artists' songs.

>>mrkeen+Ia
It is neutral though. That’s the whole point. You have to twist its arm with great intention to recreate specific things. Sufficient intention that it’s really on you at that point.

>>jncfhn+Ab
It’s not neutral if all the content is in the model, regardless of whether you had to twist its arm or not. What does that even mean with a piece of software?

A printer is neutral because you have to send it all the data to print out a copy of copyrighted content. It doesn’t contain it inherently.