OpenAI is in a “tough spot” because it scrambles to avert a flood of copyright lawsuits from media outlets that might cripple the high-flying startup — and even shutter it for good, experts told The Post.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT and other AI chatbots have allegedly been using copyrighted news content to compete with media corporations for eyeballs without giving publishers proper credit or compensation — an unauthorized practice that experts say could devastate the normal media business if it goes unchecked.
In an effort to maintain the peace, OpenAI — whose CEO Sam Altman recently returned to the helm following a short-lived coup by the corporate’s board — has reportedly engaged in talks with several distinguished media firms, including CNN and Fox Corp., on deals to pay for access to content that will be used to coach its popular chatbot.
OpenAI already announced content deals with the Associated Press and Axel Springer.
However the firm’s disruptive AI tools — namely its popular chatbot — have led to lawsuits akin to one recently filed by the Latest York Times, which experts say poses a formidable argument for OpenAI to either stop stealing the Gray Lady’s content or cough up significant payouts.
OpenAI’s response up to now has yielded mixed results. The firm’s piecemeal approach to negotiations runs the chance of exposing it to bother as US lawmakers and federal courts alike examine the legality of AI training, in accordance with experts.
“They’re in a tricky spot,” an industry source who requested anonymity to debate the situation told The Post. “I feel they’re now seeing what happens, when you negotiate with entities individually, then you definitely’re beholden to every one acting otherwise. Whatever comes from that, It’s not as predictable.”
The Latest York Times said it opted to sue OpenAI only after talks on potentially “amicable solution,” akin to a licensing deal, broke down months earlier. Individually, the Washington Post hasn’t been in negotiations in any respect in recent months, an organization spokesperson confirmed to The Post.
The Times lawsuit, filed in Manhattan district court last month, seeks to carry OpenAI and chief backer Microsoft chargeable for “billions of dollars” in damages. The suit is probably going years away from a court date, with firms facing the chance of getting their work stolen during that point without financial or legal repercussions.
The lawsuit included many instances during which the GPT-powered chatbots regurgitated verbatim or near-verbatim copies of the Times’ articles in response to user prompts – including a notoriously scathing review of celebrity chief Guy Fieri’s American Kitchen & Bar restaurant in 2012 and a Pulitzer Prize-winning article called “Snow Fall: The Avalanche at Tunnel Creek.”
OpenAI described the Times’ lawsuit as “without merit” in a lengthy Jan. 8 blog post and alleged the newspaper “intentionally manipulated prompts, often including lengthy excerpts of articles, in an effort to get our model to regurgitate.”
The blog post cited “long-standing and widely accepted precedents” but lacked any specific examples of “fair use” court cases that will support its stance, making OpenAI seem “a bit scared,” the industry source said.
“For those who’re on the weaker side, that’s when the corporate ought to be silent and wait for court and cross your fingers and hope that judges are scared to interrupt the shiny toy,” the source added.
OpenAI dismissed the “regurgitation” of verbatim passages from articles as “a rare bug that we’re working to drive to zero.” The firm said the Times refused to supply examples before the lawsuit, which might have been promptly fixed.
The Times’ lawsuit is “essentially the most serious claim filed thus far” against an AI firm since the newspaper “brought receipts” showing specific examples of near-perfect copying, said James Grimmelman, professor of digital and knowledge law at Cornell Law School.
“A number of other lawsuits have relied on much thinner showings of copying, like showing you’ll be able to get it to generate a summary of a book or one sentence at a time,” Grimmelman told The Post. “This really shows that ChatGPT has memorized large numbers of Times articles.”
Given the large financial and legal stakes tied to the lawsuits, it might be surprising if OpenAI allowed them to go to trial, in accordance with Kristelia Garcia, a copyright law expert and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
The opportunity of a court ruling that might upend its entire business model could add pressure on OpenAI to just accept a settlement or perhaps a retroactive licensing agreement to settle the Times’ claims.
“Statutory damages are enormous,” Garcia added. “It could effectively not only stop their business models as they comprehend it but probably close the businesses down.”
The Post has reached out to OpenAI for comment.
Elsewhere, an unnamed media company is reportedly “considering taking legal motion” against OpenAI just like the Times’ lawsuit,” Bloomberg reported. Last 12 months, billionaire investor Barry Diller suggested that publishers should sue AI firms for unauthorized use of their content.
The talk has also spilled over to Capitol Hill – with Conde Nast CEO Roger Lynch telling a Senate panel that AI tools have been “built with stolen goods” and calling for Congress to enact regulation.
OpenAI also has reportedly irked some media executives with paltry offers. Last week, The Information reported that OpenAI has offered sums of $5 million or less to outlets in exchange for a license to make use of their articles.
Despite ongoing talks with other media outlets, OpenAI is clearly bracing for an onslaught of legal motion related to its business practices.
In an eyebrow-raising admission in a filing to the UK’s House of Lords last week, OpenAI stated it might be “unimaginable to coach today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials.”
Meanwhile, the Times and some other outlets who opt to sue could consider a settlement because a deal for normal licensing payments would supply the newspaper with a “long-term sustainable model” to cash in on AI’s usage of its work, Grimmelman said.