General
Share and discuss tech, products, business, startups, or product recommendations
Start new thread
Lakshya Singh

What does the New York Times' lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI mean for the future of AI?

by•
The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement in the use of its content to train AI models. This legal battle signifies a growing concern among content creators about fair compensation for their work in the AI landscape. The outcome could set a crucial precedent. If NYT wins this lawsuit, this will follow a lot more restrictions on AI innovations. And if Microsoft and OpenAI win, this will push down the spirit of journalism and might even give rise to misinformation and fake news in the future.  Which side are you?
5 views

Add a comment

Replies

Best
Markk Tong
AI Desk by Collov AI
I understand the complexities of this lawsuit. It's a delicate balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering innovation in AI. The outcome will undoubtedly shape the future of content usage in AI models. On one hand, fair compensation for content creators is crucial for sustaining quality journalism. On the other hand, overly restrictive measures could stifle AI advancements. It's a tough call, but finding a middle ground that respects copyright while allowing for progress in AI is essential. What are your thoughts on this?
Nick
I see it as those who shunned bleeding edge tech and future ambitions, now trying to find avenues of profit in those businesses. If you simplify what is actually occurring, the NYT is shooting itself in the foot, because new generations will just avoid companies that they feel restrict AI innovation without giving ample evidence of a reason why. The lawsuit hinges more on being compensated for source usage of Open AI's training sets, not the distribution of proprietary content. A million companies mine data and content from NYT and other agencies for over a decade, but none of those companies had the valuation of Microsoft and OpenAI, NYT didn't see profit in trying to "secure journalism" in those cases, but now it sees huge compensation from allowing its data to be used and is going to either fight for a piece of the pie or hope to be offered a place as a partner by applying pressure. Just my two cents, I could be totally wrong, but that's the optics I'm getting from it.
Nick
@lakshya_singh Great Article! I feel like they can see the future and right now they don't hold a big position in it, so they are doing what they can to build a financial buffer before the floor drops out. As data gets monetized more and more, everyone is trying to get in on the next mainstream frameworks. While NYT subscription has gained some ground, I think over time its going to become harder and harder to ask people to pay money for information they can get elsewhere for free or cheaper. They know that, so what better then to wrangle a deal with OpenAI and Microsoft for proprietary positions in news sourcing for their platforms. Just like when the www was evolving in the 90s, was only a matter of time before monetization of it began. I can't be mad at it, people need to get paid for their work, but I feel like just when we get closer to decentralizing knowledge and making learning more democratic, stuff like this will occur. Other than putting money in NYTs pockets, I can not see how this helps their journalists, lol especially considering most of their journalists are probably paying for ChatGPT Plus 🤣
Raju Singh
this will be the norm going forward. If the data is not in open, the data will be obtained through unfair means. SGE is one such example where Google will leverage data from open and make it their own. That the whole elephant in the room scenario to be addressed.
Rick Fan
Sider: AI Research Agent & Extension
In the early days of the AI era, this inevitable and necessary discussion focuses on how the old guard, those who have long benefited, can survive in the new age. It's a game that will ultimately lead to a new form of social symbiosis. Content creators' interests need protection, but The New York Times can't represent everyone; this is just the beginning.