🧵 The historic NYT v. @OpenAI lawsuit filed this morning, as broken down by me, an IP and AI lawyer, general counsel, and longtime tech person and enthusiast.
Tl;dr - It's the best case yet alleging that generative AI is copyright infringement. Thread. 👇
1/ First, the complaint clearly lays out the claim of copyright infringement, highlighting the 'access & substantial similarity' between NYT's articles and ChatGPT's outputs. Key fact: NYT is the single biggest proprietary data set in Common Crawl used to train GPT.
2/ The visual evidence of copying in the complaint is stark. Copied text in red, new GPT words in black—a contrast designed to sway a jury. See Exhibit J here.
My take? OpenAI can't really defend this practice without some heavy changes to the instructions and a whole lot of litigating about how the tech works. It will be smarter to settle than fight.
3/ 🦸 NYT is a great plaintiff. It isn't just about articles; it's about originality and the creative process. Their investigative journalism, like an in-depth taxi lending exposé cited in the complaint, goes beyond mere labor—it’s creativity at its core.
But here's a twist: copyright protects creativity, not effort. While the taxi article's 600 interviews are impressive, it's the innovation in reporting that matters legally. By the way, this is a very sharp contrast with the suit against GitHub Copilot, which cited only a few lines of code that were open source.
4/ ❌ Failed negotiations suggest damages for NYT. OpenAI's already licensed from other media outlets like Politico.
OAI's refusal to strike a deal with NYT (who says they reached out in April) may prove costly, especially as OpenAI profits grow and more and more examples happen. My spicy hypothesis? OpenAI thought they could get out of it for 7 or 8 figures. NYT is looking for more and an ongoing royalty.
5/ 😈 The complaint paints @OpenAI as profit-driven and closed. It contrasts this with the public good of journalism. This narrative could prove powerful in court, weighing the societal value of copyright against tech innovation. Notably, this balance of good v evil has been at issue in every major copyright case - from the Betamax case to the Feist finding telephone books not copyrightable. The complaint even mentions the board and Sam Altman drama.
6/ 🚫 Misinformation allegations add a clever twist. The complaint pulls in something people are scared of - hallucinations - and makes a case out of it, citing examples where elements of NYT articles were made up.
🍊 Most memorable example? Alleging Bing says the NYT published an article orange juice causes lymphoma.
7/ 💼 Another interesting point: NYT got really good lawyers. Susman Godfrey has a great reputation and track record taking on tech. This isn't a quick cash grab like the lawsuits filed a week after ChatGPT; it's a strategic legal challenge.
End/ The case could be a watershed moment for AI and copyright. A lot of folks saying OpenAI should have paid. We'll see!
What's at stake? The future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. Stay tuned.
#OpenAI #IPLaw #Copyright #NYTimes
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
⚖️ Stanford's working on a study showing most AIs fail at legal work. The pre-print data is troubling. Correct answers only 20-65% of the time. Whole-cloth hallucinations rates of 17-33%. Bad!
But, hold up ...
GC AI got all the published questions in the Stanford paper correct.
Our small Silicon Valley startup beat two $80 billion companies' legal AIs.
🧾We brought receipts. Thread.👇
2/ First, a note. Precision matters for lawyers. Million-dollar litigations hinge on commas.
🧑⚖️ Lawyers make the big bucks to be super-precise word machines.
🩶 Some legal questions are grey. Like whether an in-ground trampoline qualifies as 'landscaping' - a real case ChatGPT helped with.
✅ But the Stanford authors came up questions with clear, verifiable answers. Kudos to them.
3/ Did LexisNexis (RELX: $83B, also a data broker 🫠) get the Stanford researchers' questions right?
How about Westlaw from Thomson Reuters (TRI: $74B)?
🏡 In-house - at companies and not law firms - is the best place for legal AI.
We are relatively cheaper and don't bill by the hour. We get more done. We hire and fire firms. CEOs trust _us_.
As a result, in-house lawyers have grown 7.5x times the rate of other kinds of lawyers the last 25 years. The role of "product counsel" boomed, just like the role of product manager in this time.
Today Google employs 828 "product counsel." That's more than only the biggest law firms.
AI accelerates that trend. Just like lawyers with more context about your business are more useful, so too is AI. Companies will want to own that and have their best judgement lawyers on it.
🏒 PS - I went in-house first in 2002 as a paralegal, then again in 2013 to Amazon when this chart went hockey stick ...
Who's winning on the tech side?
🏆 @OpenAI's GPT-4 is the only model good enough for legal work, and it's not even close. I say this having taught 1000s of lawyers how to use AI. But ChatGPT and vanilla tools have been instructed too friendly and tuned to be chatty and golden retriever.
🤡 Gemini is nerfed. It refuses most legal questions.
❌ Claude's tone is weird, and it won't search the web.
💄 Meta's Llama misses the point entirely, often. It thinks Revlon duties from the famous corporate law case - are to put on make-up.
🫠 Re the same company @8teAPi notes ($750M valuation) ... I've also had AmLaw 50 partners tell me they didn't like it. They ask to use GC AI.
🍫 PS the bar exam is legit hard! It tests grinding, speed, and memorization. It's a good proxy for many legal tasks. GPT-4 earns my respect for passing it.
🧵Elon's losing case against OpenAI, Microsoft, and Altman, as explained by me, a tech lawyer, general counsel and former litigator.
Tl;dr - PR fireworks and fun-to-read intrigue and philosophizing about AGI. But legally, a stinker because there’s no contract breach. Thread. 👇
1/ ✅ First, Musk filed in Superior Court in San Francisco, not federal court. Musk bases his case on state law contract claims.
He has to show a contract and that it was breached. Musk claims:
1️⃣ We agreed OpenAI and AGI would be open. But OpenAI is closed.
2️⃣ We agreed AGI had to be non-profit. We have AGI now, but it’s for profit.
3️⃣ I gave the OpenAI nonprofit $48M+ based on promises now broken.
2/ The problem is no actual contract was breached. Let me explain.
Musk combines three things and says they're the "Founding Agreement" ...
1️⃣ Talks with Altman about what OpenAI was to be
2️⃣ A 2015 email to Altman where he says
3️⃣ OpenAI’s articles of incorporation, which Musk isn’t even a signatory to, and which … don’t say what Musk claims. (We’ll get to that.)
But one and two are not contracts. Let’s go to the third.
🧵 OpenAI responded to the NYT’s lawsuit with a 1,063-word blog post yesterday.
Let's dig in. Thread from the X algo's new fave tech and IP lawyer and GC.👇
Tl;dr - the blog post is weak. Little data and odd citations. A missed opportunity for OpenAI, who has a good fair use case.
2/ To start, two odd choices by OAI:
🖼️ they use a DallE image for the blog icon. It looks like an indie artist's work on Facebook. Why remind the reader about generative art too? My reco: a cool graph showing progress on copyright issues instead.
✍️ the blog post "author" is OpenAI. Better to have a person sign and humanize OpenAI. Hundreds of OAI employs signed the letter for Sam to stay (amazing!). Not one signed this. Maybe they didn't want to be deposed...
3/ OpenAI's first argument: they support news organizations. They "work hard" and have "met with dozens." The meetings discuss the publishers' concerns and how OAI can "provide solutions."
🌶️ My take: are the solutions ... green? Do they have zeros after them? 💰