1. OpenAI Dismisses Lawsuit as “Without Merit”
OpenAI has issued a public response to a copyright lawsuit initiated by The New York Times, categorically stating that the case is “without merit” while expressing a desire for future collaboration with the media outlet.
2. Challenge to Times’ Narrative
In a detailed blog post, OpenAI contested the Times’ portrayal, claiming that the media outlet failed to present the complete story. The company particularly took issue with the accusation that its ChatGPT AI tool replicated Times articles verbatim, asserting that manipulated prompts were responsible for including recycled excerpts.
3. Model Behavior and Reproduction Efforts
OpenAI emphasized that even with specific prompts, its models typically do not behave as implied by the Times. The company claimed to have actively worked to minimize content reproduction from its language models and pointed out that the Times refused to share examples of such replication before filing the lawsuit.
4. Fair Use Argument and Training Data
Maintaining a long-standing position, OpenAI reiterated its commitment to respecting copyright while arguing that training AI models with internet data falls under fair use rules. The company stressed the importance of accessing a broad spectrum of human knowledge for effective AI learning and problem-solving.
5. Hopes for Future Partnership
Despite the legal dispute, OpenAI expressed optimism about ongoing negotiations with the Times for a potential partnership akin to those with other media entities like Axel Springer and The Associated Press. The company conveyed a desire for a constructive collaboration and acknowledged the significance of the Times’ extensive history.
6. Response from The New York Times
In response to OpenAI’s position, Ian Crosby, lead counsel for The New York Times, countered by highlighting the acknowledgment in OpenAI’s blog that the Times’ work was used to build ChatGPT. Crosby argued that the defendants sought to benefit from the Times’ substantial journalism investment without permission or payment, asserting that such actions do not align with fair use principles.