Embed Notice

@Colarusso @mmasnick Understood and agreed.

The submitted evidence for copying in this NYT case seems rather weak to me; they have (as Masnick points out) set up highly concocted circumstances to get that output, but GPT will also repeat near-verbatim chunks under much looser prompting.

I’m thinking in particular of legal risks for companies using this tech, who could plausibly find themselves sued on copyright grounds for using GPT output.