> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The constitution is clear that the purpose of intellectual property is to promote progress. I feel that OpenAI is on the right side of that and this is not IP theft as long as they aren't reproducing others work in a non-transformative way.

Training the AI is clearly transformative (and lossy to boot). Giving the AI the ability to scrape and paraphrase others work is less clear and both sides each have valid arguments. I don't envy the judges that must make that call.

▲

etchalon 13 hours ago | parent [-]

If they're reproducing NY Times articles, in full, that that is non-transformative. That's the point of the case.

▲

mapontosevenths 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> That's the point of the case.

No, its not. See the PDF of the actual case below.

The case is largely about OpenAI training on the NY Times articles without permission. They do allege that it can reproduce their articles verbatim at times, but that's not the central allegation as it's obviously a bug and not an intentional infringement. You have to get way down to item 98 before they even allege it.

https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...

	▲	etchalon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They alleged it in point 4? "Defendants have refused to recognize this protection. Powered by LLMs containing copies of Times content, Defendants’ GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style, as demonstrated by scores of examples. See Exhibit J. These tools also wrongly attribute false information to The Times."