zlacker

Not sure where you're coming from in this. A NYT article, once written is copyrighted. Using the content without attribution is at best plagiarism, and spitting it out the way the LLMs do is definitely a violation of if that copyright.

Unless you're telling me ChatGPT has eyes and sources just like the NYT and is worrying events as it sees them too?

>>passwo+(OP)
I don't understand. So if New York times reported on a new laws of physics and put as an article will became copyrighted? Nobody would be able to talk about it and has to discover it by themselves?

How is reporting on an event different from reporting on discovering a scientific law?

>>rand12+q
It's not. That's why at the end of every article that is not original reporting you will find a little bit saying "As originally reported by (organization)" and there is usually some sort of license associated with that. ChatGPT neither includes sources nor deals with any licensing. That's the issue

>>rand12+q
The exact words used to explain the scientific law are copyrighted by the writer (presumably the paper's authors). Rephrasings are not copywrited by the source, but by the rephrasing entity (e.g. the NYT, or a teacher that made a handout for their class).

Copyright on scientific papers is most definitely a thing, by the way.

>>jprete+Z5
If the bar for copyright is as low as ordering of words, then I don't even know what to say.

>>rand12+C8
So stop saying anything. Go learn how copyright works in the real world

>>passwo+gx
What makes you think my opinions will change based on how legacy systems work in real world? Just because a stupid system exists doesn't mean it's correct.