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
Copyright is not about ideas, style, etc. but about the concrete shape and form of content. Patents and trademarks are for the rest. But this is a copyright centric case.

A lawsuit that proves verbatim copies, might have a point. But then there is the notion of fair use, which allows hip hop artists to sample copyrighted material, allows journalists to cite copyrighted literature and other works, and so on. There are a lot of existing rulings on this. Legally, it's a bit of a dog's breakfast where fair use stops and infringement begins. Upfront, the NYT's case looks very weak.

A lot of art and science is inherently derivative and inspired by earlier work. So is art. AI insights aren't really any different. That's why fair use exists. Society wouldn't be able to function without it. Fair remuneration extents only to the exact form and shape you published in for a limited amount of time and not much else. Publishing page and page of NYT content would be a clear infringement. But a citation here and there, or a bit of summary, paraphrasing, etc. not so much.

The ultimate outcome of this is simply models that exclude any NYT content. I think they are overestimating the impact that would have. IMHO it would barely register if their content were to be excluded.