zlacker

Because no one forced them to, and the copyrighted dataset is much larger? It's like trying to teach your kids using only non copyrighted textbooks. There's not much out there.

Copyright is an ancient system that is a poor legal framework for the modern world, IMO. I don't think it should exist at all. Of course as a rightsholder you are free to disagree.

If we can learn and recite information, and a robot can too, then we should have the same rules.

It's not like ChatGPT is going around writing its own copycat articles and publishing them in newsstands. If it's good at memorizing and regurgitating NYT articles on request, so what? Google can do that too, and so can a human who spends time memorizing them. That's not its intent or usefulness. What's amazing is that it can combine that with other information and synthesize novel analysis.

The NYT is desperate (understandably). Journalism is a hard hard field with no money. But I'd much rather lose them than OpenAI. Of course copyright law isn't up to me, but if it were, I'd dissolve it altogether.

>>solard+(OP)
Ok, your reasoning escapes me. NYT has the right to sue and like any other business it’s holding onto their moat. Why would they let OpenAI train on their propery? Why wouldn’t they train their own AI on their own data?

Open AI is a business. NYT is a business. MS is a business. Neither will be happy when some other party takes something away from them without paying.