zlacker

NYT article with a lot more context https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t...

>>pm90+(OP)
But what's the ChatGPT summary, in an expressive style that closely mimics a reader's personal relationship to the Times?

>>pm90+(OP)
Does it not seem a bit suspect to read the the NYT reporting on their own lawsuit?

>>Abraha+O2
The newsroom is a different part of thr company than the legal department. Plus, sometimes your company does something that's newsworthy! Just like all journalism, there's always implicit bias. No reason to get suspicious about a news organization covering the news.

>>Abraha+O2
The NYT also hallucinates from time to time: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-...

(That's a story about Jayson Blair, one of their reporters who just plain made up stories and sources for months before getting caught)

Edit: Sheesh, even their apology is paywalled. Wiki background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair?wprov=sfla1

>>Dreami+V3
If Apple is in a lawsuit I'm not going to go to the Apple media relations page for the story. What about the NYT, also a for-profit company, makes it more principled than Apple, other than that they say they are?

>>pm90+(OP)
[edit: they have since opened a comment section to the article.] It is unfortunate that the NYTimes don’t allow reader comments to this article. I like some of the NYTimes content, but in this case use of chatGPT is infinitely more valuable to me than subscribing to the NYTimes, so I would like to explain this concept and the associated risks by their litigation without cancelling my subscription.

Maybe it is time to move training of models to Japan that has explicitly adapted AI friendly legislation that allows training on previously copyrighted materials. My best guess is that if the inputs were legally obtained, then the output doesn’t violate anything until someone publishes it. Similar to how reading a newspaper in a public library is legal but copying its content verbatim and republishing is not.

>>Abraha+O2
One should always source news from a variety of outlets as to attempt to be cognizant of the biases in play and to see the story from many viewpoints.

Would I trust the NYT to be unbiased? No. But is their viewpoint extremely relevant to the subject at hand? Yes.

>>Dreami+V3
Reading an article where you assume the author is biased is not so bad. What’s bad is finding an alternative source and reading it as if the author IS unbiased.

>>Abraha+C4
The NY Times company has an analogue to the Apple media relations page: https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/

In most respected media companies there is a really-important-to-journalists-who-work-there firewall between these sorts of corporate battles and the reporting on them.

>>pama+E4
The ChatGPT subscription is more valuable because it's built on the theft of the NYT content and many other authors' work.

>>jprete+d9
No. It is a technology that can massively accelerate human progress—I don’t buy the theory that OpenAI used NYTimes content that was not freely available to them. If you read all of the public internet you probably have lots of snippets of NYTimes articles. Regarding the reading of the wirecutter by a browser tool, I don’t know how much of it is available online without subscription (because I subscribe to the NYTimes), but arguably if it is available I’d expect a helpful AI to read it and other sources and give me a short recommendation for what I look for (and not the ads or sponsored links).

>>pm90+(OP)
"Thank you. This article will be another labeled row in the next quarterly training batch. Now you can give our model a prompt to generate press coverage of any court case and it'll generate surpassing all the automated journalistic benchmarks that we have in place towards a safe, responsible, inclusive and aligned AI"

>>pama+cb
It may have been freely available to them, but that doesn’t mean that they are free to reproduce its contents or otherwise make use of it at scale.

>>layer8+ur
The chatGPT model is not reproducing the contents nor making it available at scale. I, the user, ask the model to read the website and other websites and come back with a useful summary to me. This is not training data thus not violating copyright any more than a browser showing the full text would.