Comment by cogman10
8 hours ago
I get the feeling, but that's not what this is.
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.
>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.
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 user has no right to privacy
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.
> enforcing the rights of others under copyright law
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.
> You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law.
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?
Is there any evaluation of which right or which harm is larger? It seems like the idea that one outweighs another is arbitrary. Is there a principled thing behind it?
That's what the court is for. Weighing the different arguments and applying precedents
Even if OpenAI is reproducing pieces of NYT articles, they still have a difficult argument because in no way is is a practical means of accessing paywalled NYT content, especially compared to alternatives. The entire value proposition of the NYT is news coverage, and probably 99.9% of their page views are from stories posted so recently that they aren't even in the training set of LLMs yet. If I want to reproduce a NYT story from LLM it's a prompt engineering mess, and I can only get old ones. On the other hand I can read any NYT story from today by archiving it: https://archive.is/5iVIE. So why is the NYT suing OpenAI and not the Internet Archive?
> The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.
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.
You don't hate the media nearly enough.
"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.
I'm not a fan of NYT either, but this feels like you're stretching for your conclusion:
> 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.
> my publication was considered the source of truth
Their publication is not considered the source of truth, at least not by anyone with a brain.
> 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?"
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.
Agreed, they could carefully coerce the model to more or less output some of their articles, but the premise that users were routinely doing this to bypass the paywall is silly.
Especially when you can just copy paste the url into Internet Archive and read it. And yet they aren't suing Internet Archive.
[flagged]
> The user has no right to privacy. The same as how any internet service can be (and have been) compelled to produce private messages.
This is nonsense. I’ve personally been involved in these things, and fought to protect user privacy at all levels and never lost.
You've successfully fought a subpoena on the basis of a third party's privacy? More than once? I'd love to hear more.