don't know if the Times is such the bad guy that this article presents, imo the justice system in the USA has always been that way. They don't care how extravagant one request is or how little it makes sense so long as you got money and lawyer to push it.
I guess people could switch to one of the many chatgpt competitor that isn't being forced to give away your personal chat.
Don't even know what the time is trying to achieve now, the cat is out of the bag with LLM. Even if a judge ruled that chatgpt and other must give royalties to the time for each request, what about the ones running locally on joe's computer or in countries that don't care about American justice at all.
> The Times argued that people who delete their ChatGPT conversations are more likely to have committed copyright infringement. And as Stein put it in the hearing, it’s simple “logic” that “[i]f you think you’re doing something wrong, you’re going to want that to be deleted.”
My most generous guess here is that the NYT is accusing OpenAI of deleting infringing user chats themselves, because the implication that someone would delete their history due to fear of copyright infringement is completely stupid.
This is a nuclear bomb sized development if it's true that all ChatGPT chats will be released to NYTimes lawyers to comb through.
It's not going to stop the rise of LLMs. But one should expect it to cause a lot of very strange news in the next couple of years (lawful leaks [i.e. "discovery"], unlawful leaks, unintended leaks, etc.).
The Justice system (pretty much anywhere) is amenable to being incentivized. It looks like NYT has found the right judge (take that how you will).
> This is a nuclear bomb sized development if it's true that all ChatGPT chats will be released to NYTimes lawyers to comb through
Just to be clear, what NY Times lawyers means in this situation is the outside lawyers that the Times has hired to litigate this case. Lawyers that actually work at the Times won't get access. Not will non-lawyers who work at the Times.
The outside lawyers might also hire experts to help them understand and assess the information. Those experts might get access subject to court approval. ChatGPT would have a chance to challenge the choice of experts.
The way access works typically is that the lawyers for the side providing the data (ChatGPT in this case) will set aside a room in their offices (or someplace they've rented specifically for this litigation) that contains a computer and storage with all the data, does not have internet access, and is locked. The other side has to come and be let into the room to look at the data, and can't take copies with them when they leave.
It seems time to add the Times to the lists of blocked domains. If the US court thinks their data is so sensitive* everyone in the world should give up their privacy for it it would be better if no one (outside the US) has access to this sensitive* data.
Adding to the reasons I distrust mainstream media, especially that particular one. They should get over themselves. They aren’t all that. Typical obnoxious New York attitude. I hope for everyone’s sake that OpenAI’s lawyers can absolutely crush the NYT. I think NYT is just after cash since their shitty industry is dying. Their demise wouldn’t bother me a bit.
"This is the newspaper that won a Pulitzer for exposing domestic wiretapping in the Bush era"
The current NYT is about as far away from that past as you can get. These days they would be writing column after column inciting the whistleblower should be locked up for live as a domestic terrorist.
Watching them skewer Bernie Sanders was eye opening. I get not endorsing him, but it was far beyond that and was not measured journalism. They worked over time to discredit him. They are the poster child for neoliberalism.
Huh, Google doesn't even show your Gemini history to you. It's supposedly saved, but the "history" can change over time, suggesting that it's regenerated (some of the time?) when you look at it.
> But last week, in a Manhattan courtroom, a federal judge ruled that OpenAI must preserve nearly every exchange its users have ever had with ChatGPT — even conversations the users had deleted.
Interesting. Does this imply that OpenAI needs to distinguish between users in the EU who absolutely have a right to have personal information deleted (like, really, actually deleted) and users in the US?
The opinion contribution is obviously taking the side of Open AI by spreading FUD. The whole piece is basically "do you really trust the evil New York Times with the data you entrusted to us, the honorable techbros of Open AI?".
I don't think people trust OpenAI nor NYT. But if you did trust OpenAI with your sensitive data, NYT isn't going to be more nefarious with it that OpenAI already is.
The NYTimes wants user chat logs, not because they seriously think users are using ChatGPT to pirate NYTimes articles, but because they want to comb through all those logs for anything juicy to make content for their tabloid rag. "10 Things You Won't Believe Senator's Aides Asked ChatGPT!"
As another commenter noted, I don’t trust NYT’s lawyers with my chats any less than OpenAI, but spreading private data should be limited as far as possible.
I just cancelled my NYT subscription because of their actions, detailing the reason for doing so. It’s a very small action, but the best I can do right now.
23 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 51.5 ms ] threadI guess people could switch to one of the many chatgpt competitor that isn't being forced to give away your personal chat.
Don't even know what the time is trying to achieve now, the cat is out of the bag with LLM. Even if a judge ruled that chatgpt and other must give royalties to the time for each request, what about the ones running locally on joe's computer or in countries that don't care about American justice at all.
My most generous guess here is that the NYT is accusing OpenAI of deleting infringing user chats themselves, because the implication that someone would delete their history due to fear of copyright infringement is completely stupid.
It's not going to stop the rise of LLMs. But one should expect it to cause a lot of very strange news in the next couple of years (lawful leaks [i.e. "discovery"], unlawful leaks, unintended leaks, etc.).
The Justice system (pretty much anywhere) is amenable to being incentivized. It looks like NYT has found the right judge (take that how you will).
Just to be clear, what NY Times lawyers means in this situation is the outside lawyers that the Times has hired to litigate this case. Lawyers that actually work at the Times won't get access. Not will non-lawyers who work at the Times.
The outside lawyers might also hire experts to help them understand and assess the information. Those experts might get access subject to court approval. ChatGPT would have a chance to challenge the choice of experts.
The way access works typically is that the lawyers for the side providing the data (ChatGPT in this case) will set aside a room in their offices (or someplace they've rented specifically for this litigation) that contains a computer and storage with all the data, does not have internet access, and is locked. The other side has to come and be let into the room to look at the data, and can't take copies with them when they leave.
* not sure what the right word is
The current NYT is about as far away from that past as you can get. These days they would be writing column after column inciting the whistleblower should be locked up for live as a domestic terrorist.
Interesting. Does this imply that OpenAI needs to distinguish between users in the EU who absolutely have a right to have personal information deleted (like, really, actually deleted) and users in the US?
I don't think people trust OpenAI nor NYT. But if you did trust OpenAI with your sensitive data, NYT isn't going to be more nefarious with it that OpenAI already is.
I just cancelled my NYT subscription because of their actions, detailing the reason for doing so. It’s a very small action, but the best I can do right now.
The NYT making the logs public is extremely unlikely.