The trouble with this logic is NYT already made that argument and lost as applied to an original discovery scope of 1.4 billion records. The question now is about a lower scope and about the means of review, and proposed processes for anonymization.
They have a right to some form of discovery, but not to a blank check extrapolation that sidesteps legitimate privacy issues raised both in OpenAIs statement as well as throughout this thread.
The correct term for this is prima facie right.
You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law.
Similarly, liberty is a prima facie right; you can be arrested for committing a crime.
What governs or codifies that? I would have expected that there would need to be some kind of specific overriding concern(s) that would need to apply in order to violate my (even limited) expectation of privacy, not just enforcing copyright law in general.
E.g. there's nothing resembling "probable cause" to search my own interactions with ChatGPT for such violations. On what basis can that be justified?
I certainly do not care about copyright more than my own privacy, and I certainly don't find that interest to be the public's interest, though perhaps it's the interest of legacy corporations and their lobbyists.
This is nonsense. I’ve personally been involved in these things, and fought to protect user privacy at all levels and never lost.
The early 2000s were the heyday of lawsuits. People would say something about someone and if that someone was rich they would sue. It happened often.
The attorneys would sue us, the domain registrar, the ISP, everyone.
Often the things said were true. But they would sue to find out who the people were.
People selling Ponzi schemes, CEOs of public companies trying to find what union employees to fire, it was all over the place.
We would fire to quash every time. File to move venues to CA which has anti-slap laws. Depositions in DC. It was very distracting and expensive.
Never lost. Made some people really mad that they didn’t get their way.
Now for criminal things, the opposite, sorry. Two person operation and the FBI walks in your office with a warrant, then yes sir let me see the warrant first. If no warrant, then sorry sir come back with a warrant but we will take this as a notice to soft delete not hard delete content.
I've been in the situation of being instructed to pull unredacted logs for a subpoena before when I really did not think it was appropriate. I was just an IC but I talked to a lawyer about it. Since the company I worked for was not willing to fight it, my options were pull the logs, quit the job, or possibly catch a contempt charge.
It seems like everyone who is not the CEO or maybe the legal dept has much more constrained choices in this situation. I also wonder if the timeframes matter here, how much things may have changed in two decades. My experience with it was only a couple years ago, and I was surprised they chose not to fight it but presumably they know more about the chances of success than I do.
Anyhow, we worked with Public Citizen on a couple of cases and they were willing to fund to Supreme Court in order to set good precedent.
"Credible" my ass. They hired "experts" who used prompt engineering and thousands of repetitions to find highly unusual and specific methods of eliciting text from training data that matched their articles. OpenAI has taken measures to limit such methods and prevent arbitrary wholesale reproduction of copyrighted content since that time. That would have been the end of the situation if NYT was engaging in good faith.
The NYT is after what they consider "their" piece of the pie. They want to insert themselves as middlemen - pure rent seeking, second hander, sleazy lawyer behavior. They haven't been injured, they were already dying, and this lawsuit is a hail mary attempt at grifting some life support.
Behavior like that of the NYT is why we can't have nice things. They're not entitled to exist, and by engaging in behavior like this, it makes me want them to stop existing, the faster, the better.
Copyright law is what you get when a bunch of layers figure out how to encode monetization of IP rights into the legal system, having paid legislators off over decades, such that the people that make the most money off of copyrights are effectively hoarding those copyrights and never actually produce anything or add value to the system. They rentseek, gatekeep, and viciously drive off any attempts at reform or competition. Institutions that once produced valuable content instead coast on the efforts of their predecessors, and invest proceeds into lawsuits, lobbying, and purchase of more IP.
They - the NYT - are exploiting a finely tuned and deliberately crafted set of laws meant to screw actual producers out of percentages. I'm not a huge OpenAI fan, but IP laws are a whole different level of corrupt stupidity at the societal scale. It's gotcha games all the way down, and we should absolutely and ruthlessly burn down that system of rules and salt the ground over it. There are trivially better systems that can be explained in a single paragraph, instead of requiring books worth of legal code and complexities.
> They hired "experts" who used prompt engineering and thousands of repetitions to find highly unusual and specific methods of eliciting text from training data that matched their articles....would have been the end of the situation if NYT was engaging in good faith.
I mean, if I was performing a bunch of investigative work and my publication was considered the source of truth in a great deal of journalistic effort and publication of information, and somebody just stole my newspaper off the back of a delivery truck every day and started rewriting my articles, and then suddenly nobody read my paper anymore because they could just ask chatgpt for free, that's a loss for everyone, right?
Even if I disagree with how they editorialize, the Times still does a hell of a lot of journalism, and chatgpt can never, and will never be able to actually do journalism.
> they want to insert themselves as middlemen - pure rent seeking, second hander, sleazy lawyer behavior
I'd love to hear exactly what you mean by this.
Between what and what are they trying to insert themselves as middlemen, and why is chatgpt the victim in their attempts to do it?
What does 'rent seeking' mean in this context?
What does 'second hander' mean?
I'm guessing that 'sleazy lawyer' is added as an intensifier, but I'm curious if it means something more specific than that as well, I suppose.
> Copyright law....the rest of it
Yeah. IP rights and laws are fucked basically everywhere. I'm not smart enough to think of ways to fix it, though. If you've got some viable ideas, let's go fix it. Until then, the Times kinda need to work with what we've got. Otherwise, OpenAI is going to keep taking their lunch money, along with every other journalist's on the internet, until there's no lunch money to be had from anyone.
Their publication is not considered the source of truth, at least not by anyone with a brain.
I’m not interested in arguing about whether or not they deserve to fail, because that whole discussion is orthogonal to whether OpenAI is in the wrong.
If I’m on my deathbed, and somebody tries to smother me, I still hope they face consequences
This is the part that Times won't talk about because people stopped reading their paper long before AI, and they haven't been able to point to any credible harm in terms of reduced readership as a result of open AI launching. They just think that people might be using ChatGPT to read the New York Times without paying. But it's not a very good hypothesis because that's not what ChatGPT is good at.
It's like the people filing the lawsuit don't really understand the technology at all.
The legal term is "expectation of privacy", and it does exist, albeit increasingly weakly in the US. There are exceptions to that, such as a subpoena, but that doesn't mean anyone can subpoena anything for any reason. There has to be a legal justification.
It's not clear to me that such a justification exists in this case.
Credible to whom? In their supposed "investigation", they sent a whole page of text and complex pre-prompting and still failed to get the exact content back word for word. Something users would never do anyways.
And that's probably the best they've got as they didn't publish other attempts.
Your claim doesn’t hold up, my friend. It’s inaccurate because nobody archives an entire dialogue with a seller for the record, and you certainly don’t have to show identification to purchase a book.
They shouldnt have any rights to data after its released.
>That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs.
They are causing more damage than anything chatGPT could have caused to NYT. Privacy needs to be held higher than corporate privilege.
>Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store selling illegal copies of books.
Think of it this way, no book should be illegal.
>They can't know how often that's happened and OpenAI has an obvious incentive to simply say "Oh that never happened".
NYT glazers do more to uphold OpenAI as a privacy respecting platform than OpenAI has ever done.
>If this never happens then the amount will be low.
Should be zero, plus compensation to the affected OpenAI users from NYT.
>The user has no right to privacy.
And this needs to be remedied immediately.
>The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.
And this needs to be remedied immediately.
They can't use this data against any individual, even if they explicitly asked, "How do I hack the NYT?"
The only potential issue is them finding something juicy in someone's chat, and then claiming they found out about this juicy story through other means, but that's not likely an issue for the average punter to be concerned about.
Which is concerning since this is a news organization that's getting the data.
Let's say they do find some juicy detail and use it, then what? Nothing. It's not like you can ever fix a privacy violation. Nobody involved would get a serious punishment, like prison time, either.
There are no privacy violations. OpenAI already told the court they anonymized it. What they say in court and what they say in the blog is different and so many people here are (unfortunately) falling for it!
NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?"
That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs.
That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about.
Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store selling illegal copies of books. A very reasonable discovery request would be "Show me your sales logs". The whole log needs to be produced otherwise you can't really trust that this is the real log.
That's what NYTimes lawyers are after. They want the chat logs so they can do their own searches to find NYTimes text within the responses. They can't know how often that's happened and OpenAI has an obvious incentive to simply say "Oh that never happened".
And the reason this evidence is relevant is it will directly feed into how much money NYT and OpenAI will ultimately settle for. If this never happens then the amount will be low. If it happens a lot the amount will be high. And if it goes to trial it will be used in the damages portion assuming NYT wins.
The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.