zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
What are they arguing here? AFAIK reading copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. Copying and selling them is, as the name would suggest, but OpenAI absolutely did not do that. Are they trying to say that LLM training is a special type of reading that should be considered infringement? Seems like a weak case to me.

edit: Would be very funny if OpenAI used an educational fair use defense

>>fallin+E2
> AFAIK reading copyrighted works is not copyright infringement. [...] Are they trying to say that LLM training is a special type of reading that should be considered infringement?

Nobody can argue that OpenAI was feeding the content to ChatGPT because ChatGPT was bored or was curious about current events. It was fed NYT's content so it would know how to reproduce similar content, for profit.

I think getting a case-law in the books as to what is legal, and what is not, with LLMs, was inevitable. If it wasn't NYT suing ChatGPT, it would be another publisher, or another artist, whose work was used to "train" these systems.

>>cowsup+U3
> ... for profit.

for non-profit

>>Baldbv+V5
1. Non-profit != "not making a profit." A non-profit can still earn monetary profit, and many do.

2. The non-profit OpenAI, Inc. company is not to be confused with the for-profit OpenAI GP, LLC [0] that it controls. OpenAI was solely a non-profit from 2015-2019, and, in 2019, the for-profit arm was created, prior to the launch of ChatGPT. Microsoft has a significant investment in the for-profit company, which is why they're included in this lawsuit.

[0] https://openai.com/our-structure