OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says ChatGPT doesn't need New York Times data amid lawsuit

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on the Hope Global Forums annual assembly in Atlanta on Dec. 11, 2023.

Dustin Chambers | Bloomberg | Getty Images

DAVOS, Switzerland — Sam Altman stated he was ‘stunned’ by the New York Times’ lawsuit in opposition to his firm OpenAI, saying its synthetic intelligence fashions did not need to coach on the information writer’s data.

Describing the authorized motion as a “unusual factor,” Altman stated that OpenAI had been in “productive negotiations” with the NYT earlier than information of the lawsuit got here out. According to Altman, OpenAI needed to pay the outlet “some huge cash to show their content material” in ChatGPT, the agency’s well-liked AI chatbot.

“We have been as stunned as anyone else to learn that they have been suing us within the New York Times. That was kind of a wierd factor,” the OpenAI chief stated on stage on the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Thursday.

He added that he is not that anxious by the NYT lawsuit, and {that a} decision with the writer is not a high precedence for OpenAI.

“We are open to coaching [AI] on the New York Times, but it surely’s not our precedence,” Altman stated in entrance of a packed Davos crowd.

“We really do not need to coach on their data,” he added. “I believe that is one thing that folks do not perceive. Any one explicit coaching supply, it would not transfer the needle for us that a lot.”

The New York Times sued each Microsoft and OpenAI late final yr, accusing the companies of alleged copyright infringement by using its articles as coaching data for its AI fashions.

The NYT seeks to carry Microsoft and OpenAI accountable for “billions of {dollars} in statutory and precise damages” associated to the “illegal copying and use of The Times’s uniquely priceless works.”

In the swimsuit, the NYT confirmed examples during which ChatGPT spewed out near-identical variations of NYT tales. OpenAI has disputed the NYT’s allegations.

The authorized motion has ignited worries that extra media publishers may go after OpenAI with comparable claims. Other retailers wish to associate with the agency to license their very own content material, moderately than battle it out in court docket. Axel Springer, as an illustration, has a cope with the corporate the place it licenses its content material.

OpenAI responded to the NYT lawsuit earlier this yr, saying in a press release that cases of “regurgitation,” or spitting out total “memorized” components of particular items of content material or articles, “is a uncommon bug that we’re working to drive to zero.”

“We collaborate with information organizations and are creating new alternatives. Training is honest use, however we offer an opt-out as a result of it is the correct factor to do,” OpenAI wrote in a statement final week.

Altman’s feedback echo remarks that the AI chief made at an occasion organized by Bloomberg in Davos earlier this week. Then, Altman stated that he wasn’t that anxious in regards to the NYT lawsuit, disputed the writer’s allegations and stated there could be loads of methods to monetize information content material sooner or later.

“There’s all of the negatives of those individuals being like, oh, you recognize, do not do not do that, however the positives are, I believe there’s going to be nice new methods to eat and monetize information and different printed content material,” Altman stated.

“And for each one New York Times state of affairs, we now have many extra tremendous productive issues about individuals which might be excited to construct the long run and never do the theatrics.”

Altman added there have been ways in which OpenAI may tweak the corporate’s GPT fashions, in order that they do not regurgitate any tales or options posted on-line on-line word-for-word

“We do not wish to regurgitate another person’s content material,” he stated. “But the issue just isn’t as straightforward because it sounds in a vacuum. I believe we will get that quantity down and down and down, fairly low. And that looks as if an excellent affordable factor to judge us on.”

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *