405
OpenAI claims The New York Times tricked ChatGPT into copying its articles (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
137 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

OpenAI has publicly responded to a copyright lawsuit by The New York Times, calling the case “without merit” and saying it still hoped for a partnership with the media outlet.

In a blog post, OpenAI said the Times “is not telling the full story.” It took particular issue with claims that its ChatGPT AI tool reproduced Times stories verbatim, arguing that the Times had manipulated prompts to include regurgitated excerpts of articles. “Even when using such prompts, our models don’t typically behave the way The New York Times insinuates, which suggests they either instructed the model to regurgitate or cherry-picked their examples from many attempts,” OpenAI said.

OpenAI claims it’s attempted to reduce regurgitation from its large language models and that the Times refused to share examples of this reproduction before filing the lawsuit. It said the verbatim examples “appear to be from year-old articles that have proliferated on multiple third-party websites.” The company did admit that it took down a ChatGPT feature, called Browse, that unintentionally reproduced content.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I can take the entirety of Harry Potter, run it thru chat gpt to 'rewrite in the style of Lord of the rings', and rename the characters. Assuming it all works correctly, everything should be reworded. But, I would get deservedly sued into the ground.
News articles might be a different subject matter, but a blatant rewording of each sentence, line by line, still seems like a valid copyright claim.
You have to add context or nuance or use multiple sources. Some kind of original thought. You can't just wholly repackage someone else's work and profit off of that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    But that's not what LLMs do. They don't just reword stuff like the search and replace feature in word, it's closer to "a sentence with the same meaning".

    I'd agree it's a lot more murky when it's the plot that's your IP, and not just the actual written wordsand editorial perspective, like a news article.

    I think it's also a question of if it's copyright infringement for the tool to pull in the data and process it, or if it's infringement when you actually use it to make the infringing content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent