| ▲ | themafia 10 hours ago | |
> Finally, both parties should find a neutral third party. That's next to impossible. And if that party fails to be neutral you've just generated a new lawsuit entangled with this one. The current procedure is each side gets their own expert. The two expert can duke it out and the crucible of the courtroom decides who was more credible. | ||
| ▲ | jrockway 9 hours ago | parent [-] | |
That's fair. I understand why OpenAI wouldn't want to give anyone transcripts (as a user, I frankly wouldn't even want OpenAI to keep my transcripts), and I understand why the NYT doesn't want to give OpenAI all their articles. Maybe the NYT needs to bloom-filter-ify their articles in 10 word chunks (or something, I don't know enough about linguistics to tell you what's unique enough for copyright infringement or to prove "copying"), have OpenAI search transcripts, and turn over the matches. That limits the scope of the search dramatically, but is still invasive. | ||