zlacker

I'm not sure if the verbatim content isn't more of a "stopped clock is right twice a day" or "monkeys typewriting shakespeare" situation. As I see it, most of the value in something like the NYT is as a trusted and curated source of information with at least some vetting. The content regurgitated from an LLM would be intermixed with false information and all sorts of other things, none of which are actually news from a trusted source - the main reason people subscribe to the NYT (?) and something at which ChatGPT cannot directly compete against NYT writers.

>>dwring+(OP)
> I'm not sure if the verbatim content isn't more of a "stopped clock is right twice a day" or "monkeys typewriting shakespeare" situation.

I think it’s more nuanced than that.

Extending the “monkeys on typewriters” example, it would be like training and evolving those monkeys using Shakespeare as the training target.

Eventually they will evolve to write content more Shakespeare like. If they get so close to the target that some of them start reciting the Shakespeare they were trained on, you can’t really claim it was random.

>>Aurorn+b3
In the context of Shakespeare, I'd agree that there may be some competitive potential in the product. But in the context of news, something that evolves and relies on timely and accurate information, I don't see how something like that turns into competition for the NYT by being trained on past NYT outputs.

If the argument is that people can use ChatGPT to get old NYT content for free, that can be illustrated simply enough, but as another commenter pointed out, it doesn't really seem to be that simple.

>>dwring+(OP)
I don't understand this argument. You seem to be implying that I could freely copy and distribute other people's works without commiting copyright infringement as long as I make the resulting product somehow less compelling than the original? (Maybe I print it in a hard-to-read typeface or smear some feces on the copy.)

I have seen low fidelity copies of motion pictures recorded by a handheld camera in a theater that I'm pretty sure most would qualify as infringing. The copied product is no doubt inferior, but still competes on price and convenience.

If someone does not wish to pay to read the New York Times then perhaps accepting the risk of non-perfect copies made by a LLM is an acceptable trade off for them to save a dime.

>>dwring+u3
One example I think of is that ChatGPT can mimick styles derived on its training and based on live input information (news) it could mimick the style of any publication the offer that at discount. That could prove as the last nail in the coffin for non AI publications.