> Here, Microsoft and OpenAI haven’t just used The Times’ content to teach the AI how to communicate, they’ve launched news-specific services and features that ingest both archived content and brand new articles from The Times.
What is this referring to? AFAIK reporting on real time news is beyond the capability of an LLM, and a Google search doesn't turn up any news reporting feature.
> But the hallucinations aren’t facts; they’re lies. And even if the defendants prevail in arguing that the AIs are mostly just providing people with unprotectable facts, there’s very little to shield them from liability for the lies, both with respect to trademark dilution claims, but also with respect to potential libel or privacy-related claims that might be brought by other individuals.
This seems really weak because libel requires damages. It would be incredibly hard for the NYT to prove any damages from ChatGPT lying about it. Also libel requires "actual malice" which means the libeler needs to know that their statements are false. Good luck showing that with an LLM.
What is this referring to? AFAIK reporting on real time news is beyond the capability of an LLM, and a Google search doesn't turn up any news reporting feature.
> But the hallucinations aren’t facts; they’re lies. And even if the defendants prevail in arguing that the AIs are mostly just providing people with unprotectable facts, there’s very little to shield them from liability for the lies, both with respect to trademark dilution claims, but also with respect to potential libel or privacy-related claims that might be brought by other individuals.
This seems really weak because libel requires damages. It would be incredibly hard for the NYT to prove any damages from ChatGPT lying about it. Also libel requires "actual malice" which means the libeler needs to know that their statements are false. Good luck showing that with an LLM.