Raw LLM Responses

>The Center for Investigative Reporting said Thursday it has sued ChatGPT maker OpenAI and its closest business partner, Microsoft, marking a new front in the news industry’s fight against unauthorized use of its content on artificial intelligence platforms. > >The lawsuit is the latest against OpenAI and Microsoft to land at Manhattan’s federal court, where the companies are already battling a series of other copyright lawsuits from The New York Times, other media outlets and bestselling authors such as John Grisham, Jodi Picoult and George R.R. Martin. The companies also face a separate case in San Francisco’s federal court brought by authors including comedian Sarah Silverman. Ultimately, this probably boils down to what constitutes "fair use". Contrary to popular belief, copyright law (fundamentally unchanged since the late 1700s) does not exist for the benefit of creators. Its purpose, according to founding documents, is to foster a culture that produces great works of science, art, literature, and music. That concern for the public benefit is why the present-day law also allows for certain “fair uses” of copyrighted works. For example, printing short quotations from books is considered fair use. My providing an excerpt of this AP story is also an example of fair use. There is an argument that AI training is fair use because it “transforms” the authors’ original works. The case usually cited as precedent is Authors Guild v. Google, in which the Authors Guild sued Google for scanning millions of books to create the research product known as Google Books. In that case, a judge ruled that the scanning was fair use because Google Books primarily functioned as a research tool, with strict limits on how much copyrighted text it revealed. So, an argument for AI might propose, "If a human needs no special license to read a book or news story in a library, then neither should AI." And the fundamental question, as posed by copyright law, is whether a g