one Nikita were you surprised uh that the times brought this lawsuit and two give us your thoughts on it what did you make of it. Yeah, I was completely expecting this to happen actually for a long time, and I think the New York Times doing this is really helping a lot of the media organizations who probably don't have the ability to go out and um take on these Tech Giants. But the issue of copyright really is really so complex, and it comes down to how the courts are going to Define generative Ai, and specifically large models, because who is liable in this case? Is it considered a tool, or is it the user? And the problem is that large language models and all of these tech companies like open Ai and um anthropic by Cloud, they are completely completely shifting in the way they are thinking about these large language models. So one of the things that I think really is important to take note of is last month open AI CEO Sam Altman said in his keynote speech that they would defend their customers and

pay the costs incurred if they face legal claims around copyright, and so I think that really shows how confident maybe the tech companies are regarding their claims to make sure that these are considered just as tools and push that liability over to users. Um, but at the end of the day, we're really facing a very ethical issue um in terms of how are we going to be using people's work um and take away that and be them be a competitor in that space as well. And, and on I want to bring you into this because as someone who both studies these issues but also invests in startups that use AI, I'm curious, you know, when Nikita talks about that these some of these companies are ready to face the cost, do you how substantial do you think they could potentially be for both smaller startups and really big ones like open AI? Well, I mean, I think that the costs could be very large, Julie. It's great to see you. Happy holidays. Um, this is a debate between whether the companies training large language models on

content from the web, The New York Times, and content from lots of other places, is fair use or infringement of copyright. And if the courts or a settlement determine that there need to be payments made to the original producers of the training data, that could increase the costs for AI generative AI companies, generative AI startups, and that makes a big difference for how the industry runs. However, this was expected, as Nikita said. So these costs, in large part, have been planned for, have been thought about, and it's not something that is brand new. This has been a debate that's been ongoing for months, if not the better part of a year, and this is just the first opening of the conversation. And really, the determination will be: where does the price point lie? Is it going to be a very large transfer to those who are creating the content that the models are trained on, or is it going to be smaller? Is it going to be settled, or is it going to go to court and have judicial case law created about

copyright infringement based on this particular case. We will see, however, this was inevitable, and therefore, I think a lot of these costs have already been thought about in the long run. But let me just get your take because you know we do know tech companies have kind of made the case before, right, and it seems like their argument is this is publicly available information. We're scraping from the public Internet. It's just oceans of data, oceans of text. So it is fair use. Do you buy that argument? Uh, no, I Dy that argument, and it depends on how you use it. So if I were to take New York Times articles and start a website, SonarAll.com, and post New York Times articles on my website and charge for them, that would be copyright infringement, even if I scraped them from the web. That is not considered fair use. If I were to, however, copy a single New York Times article for one class at MIT for educational purposes, that would likely be considered fair use and training very large language models on millions, as the lawsuit indicates.

pieces of content by the New York Times is a new use. In other words, it hasn't been considered in the past as being a traditional use of uh copyrighted material, and therefore uh we have not decided as a society whether this is fair use or not. And that's why this case is so important because it will decide either through case law or through settlement how much we believe content producers deserve in terms of the use this type of use of their content. And that's what's new about this case.

Microsoft vs. NYT: AI copyright suit will be 'complex'

Yahoo Finance aims to help investors of all kinds build and maintain their wealth. Yahoo Finance videos on YouTube dissect markets, data, trends, and real-life financial issues for individual investors, industry leaders, and households through insightful interviews and detailed supercuts across various themes.

Microsoft vs. NYT: AI copyright suit will be 'complex'

Microsoft vs. NYT: AI copyright suit will be 'complex'

스크립트