NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

Published

5 months ago

December 28, 2023

admin

Not the sincerest form of flattery — NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances Shows evidence that GPT-based systems will reproduce Times articles if asked.

John Timmer – Dec 27, 2023 7:05 pm UTC Enlarge / Microsoft is named in the suit for allegedly building the system that allowed GPT derivatives to be trained using infringing material.Just_Super reader comments 359

In August, word leaked out that The New York Times was considering joining the growing legion of creators that are suing AI companies for misappropriating their content. The Times had reportedly been negotiating with OpenAI regarding the potential to license its material, but those talks had not gone smoothly. So, eight months after the company was reportedly considering suing, the suit has now been filed.

The Times is targeting various companies under the OpenAI umbrella, as well as Microsoft, an OpenAI partner that both uses it to power its Copilot service and helped provide the infrastructure for training the GPT Large Language Model. But the suit goes well beyond the use of copyrighted material in training, alleging that OpenAI-powered software will happily circumvent the Times’ paywall and ascribe hallucinated misinformation to the Times. Journalism is expensive

The suit notes that The Times maintains a large staff that allows it to do things like dedicate reporters to a huge range of beats and engage in important investigative journalism, among other things. Because of those investments, the newspaper is often considered an authoritative source on many matters.

All of that costs money, and The Times earns that by limiting access to its reporting through a robust paywall. In addition, each print edition has a copyright notification, the Times’ terms of service limit the copying and use of any published material, and it can be selective about how it licenses its stories. In addition to driving revenue, these restrictions also help it to maintain its reputation as an authoritative voice by controlling how its works appear.

The suit alleges that OpenAI-developed tools undermine all of that. “By providing Times content without The Timess permission or authorization, Defendants tools undermine and damage The Timess relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue,” the suit alleges.

Part of the unauthorized use The Times alleges came during the training of various versions of GPT. Prior to GPT-3.5, information about the training dataset was made public. One of the sources used is a large collection of online material called “Common Crawl,” which the suit alleges contains information from 16 million unique records from sites published by The Times. That places the Times as the third most referenced source, behind Wikipedia and a database of US patents. Advertisement

OpenAI no longer discloses as many details of the data used for training of recent GPT versions, but all indications are that full-text NY Times articles are still part of that process (Much more on that in a moment.) Expect access to training information to be a major issue during discovery if this case moves forward. Not just training

A number of suits have been filed regarding the use of copyrighted material during training of AI systems. But the Times’ suit goes well beyond that to show how the material ingested during training can come back out during use. “Defendants GenAI tools can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style, as demonstrated by scores of examples,” the suit alleges.

The suit allegesand we were able to verifythat it’s comically easy to get GPT-powered systems to offer up content that is normally protected by the Times’ paywall. The suit shows a number of examples of GPT-4 reproducing large sections of articles nearly verbatim.

The suit includes screenshots of ChatGPT being given the title of a piece at The New York Times and asked for the first paragraph, which it delivers. Getting the ensuing text is apparently as simple as repeatedly asking for the next paragraph.

ChatGPT has apparently closed that loophole in between the preparation of that suit and the present. We entered some of the prompts shown in the suit, and were advised “I recommend checking The New York Times website or other reputable sources,” although we can’t rule out that context provided prior to that prompt could produce copyrighted material. Ask for a paragraph, and Copilot will hand you a wall of normally paywalled text.John Timmer

But not all loopholes have been closed. The suit also shows output from Bing Chat, since rebranded as Copilot. We were able to verify that asking for the first paragraph of a specific article at The Times caused Copilot to reproduce the first third of the article. Advertisement

The suit is dismissive of attempts to justify this as a form of fair use. “Publicly, Defendants insist that their conduct is protected as ‘fair use’ because their unlicensed use of copyrighted content to train GenAI models serves a new ‘transformative’ purpose,” the suit notes. “But there is nothing ‘transformative’ about using The Timess content without payment to create products that substitute for The Times and steal audiences away from it.” Reputational and other damages

The hallucinations common to AI also came under fire in the suit for potentially damaging the value of the Times’ reputation, and possibly damaging human health as a side effect. “A GPT model completely fabricated that The New York Times published an article on January 10, 2020, titled Study Finds Possible Link between Orange Juice and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, the suit alleges. “The Times never published such an article.”

Similarly, asking about a Times article on heart-healthy foods allegedly resulted in Copilot saying it contained a list of examples (which it didn’t). When asked for the list, 80 percent of the foods on weren’t even mentioned by the original article. In another case, recommendations were ascribed to the Wirecutter when the products hadn’t even been reviewed by its staff.

As with the Times material, it’s alleged that it’s possible to get Copilot to offer up large chunks of Wirecutter articles (The Wirecutter is owned by The New York Times). But the suit notes that these article excerpts have the affiliate links stripped out of them, keeping the Wirecutter from its primary source of revenue.

The suit targets various OpenAI companies for developing the software, as well as Microsoftthe latter for both offering OpenAI-powered services, and for having developed the computing systems that enabled the copyrighted material to be ingested during training. Allegations include direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, as well as DMCA and trademark violations. Finally, it alleges “Common Law Unfair Competition By Misappropriation.”

The suit seeks nothing less than the erasure of both any GPT instances that the parties have trained using material from the Times, as well as the destruction of the datasets that were used for the training. It also asks for a permanent injunction to prevent similar conduct in the future. The Times also wants money, lots and lots of money: “statutory damages, compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any other relief that may be permitted by law or equity.” reader comments 359 John Timmer John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry rom Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. Advertisement Channel Ars Technica ← Previous story Next story → Related Stories Today on Ars

Politics

Infected blood victims to get £210,000 interim compensation payment from this summer

Published

1 hour ago

May 21, 2024

admin

Infected blood victims to get £210,000 interim compensation payment from this summer

Victims of the infected blood scandal will get £210,000 as an interim compensation payment from as early as this summer, the government has announced.

Cabinet minister John Glen told parliament the initial payment will be given to people living with the effects of contaminated blood “within 90 days, starting in the summer”.

Infected people who die between now and the payments being made will get the money sent to their estates, he added.

Mr Glen said: “As the prime minister made clear yesterday, there is no restriction on the budget. Where we need to pay, we will pay.

“We will minimise delays, we will address the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff with respect to that – speed and efficiency, and removing as much complexity as possible.”

The minister did not confirm the cost of the compensation package, but former justice secretary Robert Buckland said it could be upwards of £10 billion.

Mr Glen’s announcement came the day after a report into the scandal was published following a seven-year inquiry.

More than 30,000 Britons were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C from contaminated blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. More than 3,000 people died.

Follow live:
Reaction to government’s response

Mr Glen also announced:

• The Infected Blood Compensation Authority – an “arm’s length body” – has been established to administer compensation, with Sir Robert Francis KC as the interim chair

• Anyone directly or indirectly infected by NHS blood, blood products or tissue contaminated with HIV or Hepatitis C, or developed a chronic infection from blood contaminated with Hepatitis B is eligible for compensation

• If someone would have been eligible but has died, compensation will be paid to their estate

• When a victim has been accepted onto the scheme, their affected partners, parents, siblings, children, friends and family who acted as carers of them can claim in their own right

• People who are registered with an existing infected blood support scheme will be automatically eligible for compensation to minimise the distress of proving they should be

• There will be five types of compensation: an injury impact award, social impact award (to acknowledge the stigma or social isolation from being infected), autonomy award (for disrupted family/private life), care award (for past and future care needs), and financial loss award (for past and future financial losses caused by being infected)

• Compensation will be offered in a lump sum or periodic payments

• The family of anyone who has died will get a single lump sum

• Any payments will be exempt from income, capital gains and inheritance tax

• Payments will not count towards means tested benefit assessments

• All recipients can appeal their compensation

• Final payments will start before the end of the year

• No immediate changes to existing infected blood support scheme payments – they will continue until 31 March 2025 and will not be deducted from new compensation

• From 1 April 2025, any support scheme payments received will be counted towards final compensation

• Nobody will receive less in compensation than they would have received in support payments.

Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the inquiry, found the scandal was “not an accident” and its failures lie with “successive governments, the NHS, and blood services”.

He said the response from governments of different stripes and the NHS “compounded” victims’ suffering.

This included the “deliberate destruction of some documents” by Department of Health workers, in what Sir Brian described as a “pervasive cover-up” and “downright deception”.

“It could largely, though not entirely, have been avoided. And I report that it should have been,” he said, adding the “scale of what happened is horrifying” for victims and their families.

Victims and their families welcomed the report following decades of not being believed.

Rishi Sunak offered a “wholehearted and unequivocal” apology to the victims following the report’s publication, saying it was a “day of shame for the British state”.

He promised compensation would be given to victims and those affected, adding: “Whatever it costs to deliver this scheme, we will pay it.”

UK

Singapore Airlines: British man dies in severe turbulence as flight from London Heathrow forced to land in Bangkok

Published

1 hour ago

May 21, 2024

admin

Singapore Airlines: British man dies in severe turbulence as flight from London Heathrow forced to land in Bangkok

A 73-year-old British man has died from a suspected heart attack after turbulence on a London-Singapore flight.

Dozens more have been injured after passengers described people being “launched into the ceiling” and overhead lockers.

Singapore Airlines flight SQ321 from Heathrow was forced to make an emergency landing in Bangkok.

Seven people have serious head injuries and others have minor wounds, said the head of the Thailand airport.

The aircraft took off at 10.38pm UK time on Monday but diverted to Bangkok, landing at 3.45pm local time on Tuesday.

Passenger Dzafran Azmir, 28, described chaos as the turbulence hit.

“Suddenly the aircraft starts tilting up and there was shaking so I started bracing for what was happening,” he said.

“And very suddenly there was a very dramatic drop so everyone seated and not wearing seatbelts was launched immediately into the ceiling.”

“Some people hit their heads on the baggage cabins overhead and dented it,” he added.

“They hit the places where lights and masks are and broke straight through it.”

Briton Andrew Davies told Sky News “anyone who had a seatbelt on isn’t injured”.

He said the seatbelt sign came on, but there was no time for crew to take their seats.

Mr Davies said “every single cabin crew person I saw was injured in some way or another, maybe with a gash on their head… One had a bad back, who was in obvious pain.”

Kittipong Kittikachorn, head of Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport, told reporters a British man, 73, had died from probable cardiac arrest.

He said about 30 people were injured, including at least one crew member, and that many passengers couldn’t walk and had to be helped from the aircraft

It’s believed the sudden turbulence hit while people were being served breakfast, the airport boss added.

Mr Kittikachorn blamed an “air pocket” for the incident.

He said the dead man’s wife was with him at hospital and that some people with minor injuries had already been discharged.

The UK Foreign Office said it was “in contact with the local authorities” over the incident.

Flight tracking data showed the plane cruising at 37,000ft (11,280m) before dropping 6,000ft (1,830m) in around three minutes.

However, a spokesperson for FlightRadar24 said this appeared to “just be a flight level change in preparation for landing”.

There were 211 passengers and 18 crew on the plane, a Boeing 777-300ER.

Turbulence can hit without warning

Jo Robinson

Weather producer

@SkyJoRobinson

There are a few forms of turbulence – where there’s a sudden change in airflow and wind speed.

Turbulence can often be associated with storm clouds, which are usually well forecast and monitored, allowing planes to fly around them.

Clear-Air Turbulence (CAT) is much more dangerous as there are no visual signs, such as clouds.

This invisible vertical air movement usually occurs at and above 15,000ft and is mostly linked to the jet stream.

There are clues on where CAT may occur, but generally it can’t be detected ahead of time, which means flight crews can be caught unaware with no time to warn passengers and put seat belt signs on.

It’s been understood for some time that climate change is increasing turbulence during flights, and the trend is set to worsen according to reports.

Social media video showed ambulances surrounding the aircraft on the tarmac.

“Singapore Airlines offers its deepest condolences to the family of the deceased,” the company said in a statement.

“We deeply apologise for the traumatic experience that our passengers and crew members suffered on this flight.”

It said it was working with Thai authorities and sending a team to Bangkok to help.

Singapore is considered a standard-setter for the aviation industry and consistently tops airline awards.

Turbulence-related injuries are the most common type on passenger planes, according to a study by the US National Transportation Safety Board.

It found it was responsible for more than a third of accidents between 2009 and 2018, but no aircraft damage.

Are you affected? Send us a message on WhatsApp or email news@skynews.com if you want to send us pictures and video.

By sending us your video footage/photographs/audio you agree we can broadcast, publish and edit the material and pass it on to others for similar use in any media worldwide, without any payment being due to you.