Millions of articles from The New York Times were used to train chatbots that now compete with it, the lawsuit said.

  • spaduf@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The existing industry that’s popped up around LLMs has conveniently ignored that what these models are doing may have been illegal the whole time and a lot of the experts knew it. This is why it’s so important for folks to realize that the industry is not just thin wrappers around ChatGPT (and that interesting applications of this technology are largely being pushed out by the lowest hanging fruit). If this is ruled as not fair use then the whole industry will basically disappear overnight and we’ll have to rebuild it from scratch either with a new business model that pays authors or as open source/crowd sourced models (probably both). All that said we’re almost certainly better off. Open AI may have kicked off the most recent “gold rush” but their methods have been terrible for both the industry at large and for further development of the tech.

    • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      It always should have had the right business model where they paid for this access for AI training. They knew it was wrong but in their rush to be known they decided it was better to take without asking and then ask for forgiveness later. Regardless what happens now, people have already made a name for themselves swindling the likes of Microsoft out of it and will have long well-paying careers from it.

      • spaduf@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is a fair point with regards to a handful of companies (Microsoft, Google, Meta) but there will still be an immediate loss in quality as they go back to basics on their data pipelines. Given how long they’ve spent playing catch up in this space, I suspect progress will be pretty slow from there