this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
100 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38560 readers
246 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
remington@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
gyrfalcon@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
coldredlight@beehaw.org
SemioticStandard@beehaw.org
100
Judge calls out OpenAI’s “straw man” argument in New York Times copyright suit (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

After The New York Times sued OpenAI in December 2023—alleging that ChatGPT outputs violate copyrights by regurgitating news articles—the ChatGPT maker tried and failed to argue that the claims were time-barred.

According to OpenAI, the NYT should have known that ChatGPT was being trained on its articles and raised its lawsuit in 2020, partly because of the newspaper's own reporting. To support this, OpenAI pointed to a single November 2020 article, where the NYT reported that OpenAI was analyzing a trillion words on the Internet. But on Friday, US district judge Sidney Stein disagreed, denying OpenAI's motion to dismiss the NYT's copyright claims partly based on one NYT journalist's reporting.

In his opinion, Stein confirmed that it's OpenAI's burden to prove that the NYT knew that ChatGPT would potentially violate its copyrights two years prior to its release in November 2022. And so far, OpenAI has not met that burden.

"The fact that one of The Times’s reporters discussed OpenAI’s" AI training fails to make it clear that the newspaper knew that ChatGPT outputs years later could possibly regurgitate the NYT's reporting, Stein explained.

I can't imagine being a judge assigned a case like this knowing that the verdict could have huge implications once the appeals process is exhausted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you got a permit from the government to start building a deck, you started, then they found the mistake in the permit, that's on the government and they should accept their fault.

In this case, the NYT never gave permission.

In your example, there was no permit applied for, a cop saw you building the deck, and when the government said you need to stop and apply for a permit, you say the cop seeing you building the deck is a permit since they didn't stop you.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

okay yeah - not a perfect analogy… the point is that their argument is more nuanced… it’s still a strawman, but useful to understand their argument to predict their next moves