Thoughts on this lawsuit about AI copyright

[Jason Voorhees]

So last year thr New York Times dragged OpenAI and Microsoft to court in New York. Their allegations they used New York Times copyrighted articles to scrap through it without consent or compensation to train their AI models Chatgpt-4

The defence presented by OpenAI was that fair use. Using New York Times articles was no different tham a researcher reading the newspaper to learn, synthesize information for their own research

And NYT in return provided this evidence. They ChatGPT a few specific prompts and it produced paragraphs sometimes entire articles near verbatim word for word as they appear in NYT articles. At that point it's less a researcher and more advanced way of calling a copier machine

OpenAI in its defence said they were used prompt hacking to make ChatGPT get the output they want. And it's still going on. The case was first made in 2023. Got dismissed, then reopened, dismissed. Reopened again and last month with new litigations. A lot of pointing fingers, he did, you did it. Basically lot of back and forth and legal drama going on between corporates but my question is this.

Does what AI output out transformative enough to be considered it's own intellectual property or does it infringing on someone else? Rn it's a grey area and no judge has the balls to come out and take a strong stance because of the billions of dollars and the reputation that is at stake but what do you think is right?

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@mcmentalonthemic @Petsmart @Nathan Fielder

 

[molotov]

Why they even care in the first place? Niggas just want to drain as much money as they can from everyone.

 

[asdvek]

Why tf is grok still broken

 

[inceliusndius]

Fuck that sam scammer jew literal faggot altman

 

[psltristan1]

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Why they even care in the first place? Niggas just want to drain as much money as they can from everyone.

Corporates don't like other corporates profitting of their IP without compensation

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@mohito @FaceandBBC @TechnoBoss

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@lnceIs @Joeseminate

 

[kababcel]

So last year thr New York Times dragged OpenAI and Microsoft to court in New York. Their allegations they used New York Times copyrighted articles to scrap through it without consent or compensation to train their AI models Chatgpt-4

The defence presented by OpenAI was that fair use. Using New York Times articles was no different tham a researcher reading the newspaper to learn, synthesize information for their own research

And NYT did in return is they gave ChatGPT a few specific prompts and it produced paragraphs sometimes entire articles near verbatim word for word as they appear in NYT. At that points it's less a researcher and more advanced way of calling a copier machine

OpenAI said they were used prompt hacking to make ChatGPT get the output they want. And it's still going on. The case was first made in 2023. Got dismissed, then reopened, dismissed. A lot of pointing fingers and he did, you did it, going on between corporates but my question is this.

Does what AI output out transformative enough to be considered it's own intellectual property or does it infringing on someone else? Rn it's a grey area and no judge has the balls to come out and take a strong stance because of the billions of dollars and the reputation that is at stake but what do you think is right?

It all comes down to how this shit is gonna play out as it will set the rules for the next years for tech companies

Honestly if the stake here is reputation and billions of dollars, why would the court side with the people and ai creators?

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@Algernon

 

[mohito]

Tbh I feel like the Ny Times is making a big deal out of this

 

[Algernon]

So last year thr New York Times dragged OpenAI and Microsoft to court in New York. Their allegations they used New York Times copyrighted articles to scrap through it without consent or compensation to train their AI models Chatgpt-4

The defence presented by OpenAI was that fair use. Using New York Times articles was no different tham a researcher reading the newspaper to learn, synthesize information for their own research

And NYT in return provided this evidence. They ChatGPT a few specific prompts and it produced paragraphs sometimes entire articles near verbatim word for word as they appear in NYT articles. At that point it's less a researcher and more advanced way of calling a copier machine

OpenAI in its defence said they were used prompt hacking to make ChatGPT get the output they want. And it's still going on. The case was first made in 2023. Got dismissed, then reopened, dismissed lot of back and forth legal drama and a lot of pointing fingers, he did, you did it etc going on between corporates but my question is this.

Does what AI output out transformative enough to be considered it's own intellectual property or does it infringing on someone else? Rn it's a grey area and no judge has the balls to come out and take a strong stance because of the billions of dollars and the reputation that is at stake but what do you think is right?

i'm somewhat split

i feel like saying no because the AI while it may give an initial response close to it (despite prompt hacking), the AI can then give transformative responses based on that, so it uses multiple sources and expands upon the article

but at the same time it copied the article word for word (at least to NYT claims)

leaning more torwards no though, since while it can reproduce the article it does change wording and tend to use multiple sources

it has the ability to be asked follow up questions as well

actually the point of copyright infringement is just if it copied it, and it did even if it expands on it, so ig i'll say yes

 

[Jason Voorhees]

i'm somewhat split

i feel like saying no because the AI while it may give an initial response close to it (despite prompt hacking), the AI can then give transformative responses based on that, so it uses multiple sources and expands upon the article

but at the same time it copied the article word for word (at least to NYT claims)

leaning more torwards no though, since while it can reproduce the article it does change wording and tend to use multiple sources

it has the ability to be asked follow up questions as well

actually the point of copyright infringement is just if it copied it, and it did even if it expands on it, so ig i'll say yes

One phrase that got famous during the trials was

"Sam Altman stole the internet and is selling it back to you one API call at a time."

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Bh ump

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Tbh I feel like the Ny Times is making a big deal out of this

One phrase that got famous during the trials was

"Sam Altman stole the internet and is selling it back to you one API call at a time."

 

[Jason Voorhees]

Njk

 

[lnceIs]

With how the law usually operates I'd say it's not


Grey area = benefit of the doubt

But I reckon this is too nuanced for anyone not to select the third option tbh

 

[Jason Voorhees]

@ChadL1te

 

[Joeseminate]

Doesnt all of chatgpts responses use references if properly refernced I dont think it should be copyright nothing it provides it clains as new info its not as if its saying that it came up with these ideas itself

 

[Aox Ofwar]

So last year thr New York Times dragged OpenAI and Microsoft to court in New York. Their allegations they used New York Times copyrighted articles to scrap through it without consent or compensation to train their AI models Chatgpt-4

The defence presented by OpenAI was that fair use. Using New York Times articles was no different tham a researcher reading the newspaper to learn, synthesize information for their own research

And NYT in return provided this evidence. They ChatGPT a few specific prompts and it produced paragraphs sometimes entire articles near verbatim word for word as they appear in NYT articles. At that point it's less a researcher and more advanced way of calling a copier machine

OpenAI in its defence said they were used prompt hacking to make ChatGPT get the output they want. And it's still going on. The case was first made in 2023. Got dismissed, then reopened, dismissed. Reopened again and last month with new litigations. A lot of pointing fingers, he did, you did it. Basically lot of back and forth and legal drama going on between corporates but my question is this.

Does what AI output out transformative enough to be considered it's own intellectual property or does it infringing on someone else? Rn it's a grey area and no judge has the balls to come out and take a strong stance because of the billions of dollars and the reputation that is at stake but what do you think is right?

In my opinion this is a no brainer, no