Ep 181: New York Times vs. OpenAI – The huge AI implications no one is talking about

Episode Categories:


Join the discussion: Ask Jordan questions on AI and copyright

Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineup

Connect with Jordan Wilson: LinkedIn Profile

The Implications of the New York Times vs OpenAI Legal Battle on the AI Industry

The ongoing legal battle between a renowned media corporation and a tech giant has brought to light the complex and high-stakes nature of the AI industry. The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI and its parent company has significant implications that extend beyond the courtroom, impacting the future of AI technology and the businesses that rely on it. As the AI industry continues to evolve and shape various sectors, business owners and decision-makers need to be aware of the potential ramifications of this legal dispute.

The Impact on AI Development and Investments

The outcome of the legal battle between The New York Times and OpenAI could have far-reaching repercussions for AI technology and its development. If The New York Times were to prevail, the potential destruction of GPT models, a cornerstone of OpenAI's technology, could disrupt the progress of AI developments. This could lead to a slowdown in investments and innovations in the AI sector, impacting businesses that leverage AI solutions for various applications.

Disruption to the Economy and Tech Sector

The potential economic disruption resulting from the legal battle is a cause for concern across industries. The implications of a win for The New York Times could lead to a stall in AI growth, affecting not only tech companies but also businesses that rely on AI-based tools and services. The ripple effect of this disruption could extend beyond the tech sector, impacting the broader economy and potentially hindering the pace of technological advancements.

Challenges Faced by Companies Reliant on GPT Models

The widespread use of GPT models across industries means that many businesses are directly impacted by the legal battle. Beyond the immediate parties involved, thousands of companies rely on GPT models for a range of applications, from content generation to customer service. The potential destruction of GPT models could present significant challenges for these businesses, requiring them to adapt to alternative AI technologies or face disruptions to their operations.

The Role of Generative AI in Business Operations

Generative AI technologies, such as GPT models, play a vital role in diverse business functions, including content creation, customer interactions, and data analysis. The widespread integration of generative AI and its potential disruption from the legal battle underscores the reliance of various businesses on AI tools. Decision-makers need to consider the potential impact on their operations and explore contingencies to mitigate any adverse effects that may arise from the legal dispute.

Navigating the Implications for Business Strategies

As the legal battle unfolds, business owners and decision-makers should stay informed about the proceedings and assess the potential implications for their operations and strategies. Understanding the interconnectedness of AI technologies with business processes is essential for identifying and addressing potential risks associated with the legal dispute. Proactive measures, such as diversifying AI solutions or exploring alternative technologies, may be prudent considerations in light of the uncertainties surrounding the case's outcome.

Shaping the Future of AI Technology

The outcome of the legal battle between The New York Times and OpenAI has the potential to influence the trajectory of AI technology and its applications in various industries. The nuances of the case and its impact on the development, regulation, and utilization of AI underscore the need for thoughtful consideration and strategic planning among businesses navigating the evolving AI landscape. Keeping abreast of developments in the legal battle and its industry-wide implications will enable businesses to adapt and optimize their approaches to AI integration and innovation.

In a dynamic and interconnected business environment, the implications of the New York Times vs OpenAI legal battle on the AI industry underscore the need for vigilance and adaptability. As key stakeholders in this evolving landscape, business owners and decision-makers must remain cognizant of the potential ramifications and proactively assess their strategies to navigate the uncertainties surrounding the legal dispute. Stay informed, stay agile, and stay prepared to respond to the changing tides of AI technology and its broader implications for businesses.

Topics Covered in This Episode

1. Legal dispute between OpenAI and The New York Times
2.  Legal Filing and Evidence Analysis
3.  Financial and Economic Implications
4.  Technology and Industry Impact

Podcast Transcript

Jordan Wilson [00:00:17]:
Alright. So The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft. That's old news. And OpenAI just responded to Microsoft. So newer news, but nothing headline grabbing. But there's some huge news and And impactful implications behind the ongoing saga between The New York Times and OpenAI that no one is talking about. So we're going to address those things and more on today's show of everyday AI. Welcome if you're new here.

Jordan Wilson [00:00:51]:
What's going on? My name is Jordan Wilson, and I am the host of Everyday AI. And this is your daily livestream, podcast, and free daily newsletter, Helping everyday people like you and me not just learn what's going on in the world of generative AI because there's a lot, but how we can use it to grow our companies and to grow our careers and how we can all actually leverage with what's going on. Right? And sometimes What that starts with is understanding, you know, what's going on. And I'll tell you I'll tell you all one thing. This is a mess. The New York Times versus OpenAI saga is messy. And on today's show, I am going to unravel it all. I will tell you I I will tell you all this.

Jordan Wilson [00:01:40]:
We've done now more than a 180 episodes of everyday AI, and I think this is By far, one of the top 3 that I've spent the most time preparing. Alright? Again, here at everyday AI, We're not just a mouthpiece. We're not just a PR. We're not just, you know, one of those, NFT, influencers turned chat GPT experts that tells you use these trumps, use these prompts. No. We dig in deep to find out what this really means. Alright. So Before we get into that, if you haven't already and if you are joining us on the podcast, thank you.

Jordan Wilson [00:02:16]:
Check your show notes, but please also go to your everyday AI .com and sign up for that free daily newsletter. And, also, hey, on our site, so many different resources. You can access all of those 180 plus Podcast on our sites. So whether you want to learn something about using AI in sales or marketing or content creation or the legal implications, You can go find those different AI learning tracks on our site as well as once you subscribe to our newsletter, you can read all of those 180 back episodes. So it is literally an encyclopedia of 101 Gen AI. Alright. So before we dive into This New York Times versus OpenAI saga, we're into a very high level overview of the AI news. Alright.

Jordan Wilson [00:03:04]:
So Duolingo is laying off contractors as it increases its AI use, and the contractors it is keeping are reportedly just really working on checking the translation work of the AI. Alright. Next news story is NVIDIA is rolling out even more high quality GPU chips. These ones aim to help push the whole AI PC boom And to keep up with the overall generative AI demand, right, when all of these companies are training their models and coming out with new gen AI products, They need these GPU chips. And right now, NVIDIA is head, shoulders, knees, and toes above everyone else. So some big news from NVIDIA there. And our last news piece is OpenAI and the New York Times aren't the only ones, involved right now in a high stakes trial over AI As Google is now fall fighting a multibillion dollar lawsuit that it infringed upon a computer scientist's patents. So, again, We're gonna be recapping those stories and a whole lot more in our newsletter as well as every single day, we break down the key learnings from our livestream and Podcast in the newsletter.

Jordan Wilson [00:04:14]:
So, really, if you're listening to this on the car or if you're, you know, listening to this on your drive and your commute, And there are certain things that you hear and you're like, man, what was that? Or, you know, oh, I wanna go back and check on that later. You don't have to hit rewind. Just check out the newsletter. Alright. So let's talk New York Times versus OpenAI and the huge AI implications that No one is talking about. How do I know that no one is talking about these? Well, I've looked. I've I've searched the corners of of Google and Reddit and Twitter and LinkedIn, and there are particularly 2 very large implications or large angles of this story that no one is talking about. And, hey, thank you all for joining us, but it is technically hot take Tuesday.

Jordan Wilson [00:05:02]:
I am sipping on the hot tea right now. There it is. So if you are joining us live, thank you, like Jay and like Brian and Woozy and Megan and Ahmed and Josh and everyone else. But, hey, If you're joining us live, let me know because, again, this could get very hot. The hot takes could get very hot. Drop drop some, One flame emoji, should I be kinda nice, but still kinda hot, take Tuesday? 2 emojis, throw it in the live comment, should I bring the heat? Or 3 flame emojis should I burn? Baby, burn. You know? This could get This could get testy if I'm being honest. And I'll tell you why in a minute.

Jordan Wilson [00:05:46]:
It part of it has to do with my background As a journalist, yes, I have a an interesting take, from, I'd say a unique position, but let me know in the livestream comments right now. Mabrytz Mabrytz won all 3 all 3 flame emojis. I feel most people like it when I kinda go to, you know, go bring the heat, but not too much, but let me know. And, hey, also, let me know, like Brian, especially if it's your 1st time joining us. Let me know where you're joining from. I always like seeing that. So, yeah, whether you're joining from, The cold New York City or somewhere else like Nashville, like Tara, let me know. Woozy says I need to melt the snow and bring the 3 flame emojis.

Jordan Wilson [00:06:28]:
Alright. Well, I'll keep I'll keep looking at the emojis. I'll keep looking. Alright. Jackie Jackie wants it to burn. And, hey, If you have a hard stop, if you're listening to this live, if you wanna catch it, might as well cancel it. This is gonna be one of those longer ones I'm telling you right now, But it is not just fluff. This isn't just gonna be me, you know, old man Wilson shaking his fist on the porch, telling the kids to get off his lawn.

Jordan Wilson [00:06:54]:
This is packed. And I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying I brought the facts. I brought the receipts that literally no one else is bringing. Alright. So you don't you don't need to waste your, you know, 50 hours reading 50 articles and, You know, reading the 69 page, complaint from the New York Times yourself, I got you. I read between the lines. I did the homework that they did not do. That's why my voice is a little rasp.

Jordan Wilson [00:07:24]:
I was up late researching this for y'all. Alright. So Let's start with a high level recap. Alright? And when I say high level recap, this is a very high level Yep. Alright. We're not getting into the details just yet, but I wanna set the stage. Right? So I want this to be a refresher. So whether you've been following this closely or this is the first you've heard, I wanna get us all on the same page if I can.

Jordan Wilson [00:07:49]:
Alright? So recap. Number 1, the New York Times Sued OpenAI for copyright infringement saying that they used millions of New York Times articles that are copyrighted without permissions, And they are seeking 1,000,000,000 and damages and destruction of GPT models. Yes. That is actually, I believe, on page 67 of the 69 page complaint. They're asking a judge to rule in their favor Or, actually, I think they're asking for a jury trial, but they are asking for the destruction of GPT models. Right. And that obviously doesn't just impact, you know, OpenAI, Microsoft, but it impacts tens of thousands of companies that have either GPT integrations or have literally built their company off the backbone of GPT. And they're essentially like, you You know what people call GPT wrappers.

Jordan Wilson [00:08:46]:
Right? That they are essentially a, you know, a content creation tool that's, you know, 80% GPT and 20% how they present it. Alright. So that's big. They're asking for the literal destruction of GPT models. This is not some cheesy eighties action movie. That's actually what they're asking for. Alright. So OpenAI, just about 15 hours ago, so yesterday, responded Saying the New York Times suit was without merit and that the Times intentionally manipulated Chatt GPT to get the results that they submitted in in their 69 page filing.

Jordan Wilson [00:09:21]:
Also, OpenAI argues training on copyrighted material is fair use. Interesting. Okay. Alright. So we have 2 sides that seemingly couldn't be further from finding common ground. It's also important to note, which we'll talk about, the 2 sides up until, December 19th were reportedly in talks to not get to this point. Right? So they've been working on either a, licensing deal or potentially a preemptive settlement, But they've been working behind the scenes, so it didn't get to this point. For whatever reason, talks stalled.

Jordan Wilson [00:09:58]:
Also, we have known for many months that this was going to happen. It was eventually going to get to this point. Going back to, the summer of 2023 when ChatGPT released a new mode. It was not a plug in, a mode called browse with Bing. At the time it was reported, they had to temporarily take down for a couple of months, actually, this mode because it was found that the Browse with Bing was browsing paywalled articles from the New York Time and so many other, news sources, So they had to temporarily disable it. So this has been on the radar since then. So we've known for at least 6 plus months That there was either going to be some large license, licensing deal announced, like OpenAI is striking deals with publishers, You know, sometimes up to, you know, 1 to $5,000,000 annually. So we knew that either a big licensing deal was coming or a lawsuit.

Jordan Wilson [00:10:57]:
So we found out December 27th that it was the lawsuit route, when, The New York Times snuck that in Smack dab between Christmas and New Year's. Alright? So that is the high level recap. Alright? Tara says she hopes that we're still meeting every morning when I'm an old man on the porch. Old man Wilson. Well, hey. It'll help. If this is helpful too, by the way, please tell your friends. Share this episode.

Jordan Wilson [00:11:28]:
I'd really appreciate that. You know, there's too much bad information out there. Alright. So now with that in mind, we have the beginning of the story. Alright? So let's skip to the end, And I wanna talk about what I'm gonna spend the next however many minutes ranting over. I have so many rants, and I think most of you wanted the 3 flame emojis. I saw some twos. Alright? But so if if you actually want the 3, let me know in the comments.

Jordan Wilson [00:11:55]:
But, here's the 2 important aspects that no one is talking about. Alright? Number 1, This 69 page complaint submitted by The New York Times and its lawyers was so poorly put together and researched. It is comical. It is Egregiously bad. Right? Again, y'all wanted 3 like, You wanted to bring the heat on hot take Tuesday? It was like I swear a pug could have Pounded his paws on the keyboard and put together something similar. I read this. It is so either so poorly put together Or there is such a lack of understanding about the kind of burden of proof, so to speak, or the fact that So much of what the New York Times is is submitted is meritless. It is completely meritless like what OpenAI said.

Jordan Wilson [00:13:02]:
Right. I actually found the, I would say it's a secret exhibit. Right. So we'll get into this in a minute, but in this 100 and or sorry, in this, 69 page complaint, that New York Times filed in the southern district court of New York. They, you know, reference everything to exhibit j. Right? Like this they shared screenshots. They shared screenshots in their filing, and, you know, everything was saying, hey. See exhibit j.

Jordan Wilson [00:13:32]:
I didn't see anyone. Literally no one on the Internet Talking about exhibit j or finding it. I found it, and I'm gonna share it with y'all. It's gonna be in our newsletter. So if you haven't already signed up, You're gonna wanna sign up for this one. Trust me. Alright? But this complaint was rubbish. It was rubbish.

Jordan Wilson [00:13:54]:
It was just so incomplete. And in my opinion, Showed a lack of understanding on how large language models work. Right? The fact that the bulk of what is shown in this complaint that The New York Times filed. I I I literally didn't believe it. I was laughing when I finally found exhibit j online. And, again, I am not a lawyer. I am putting that out there. So if you are listening to this, Whether it's on the podcast if you're on the podcast, check the show notes.

Jordan Wilson [00:14:29]:
We put our email in there. We have a link that you can come back and join the already dozens of commenters in the livestream. If you're a lawyer, let me know. Right? But I was laughing at how poorly put together and how shaky and just how razor thin that the quote, unquote evidence that the New York Times and its legal team submitted. And when I found exhibit j, I was expecting to see real evidence, to see real sources, to see the receipts. I found exhibit j. It was void of those things. No additional citations, no additional sourcing, 0 actual receipts.

Jordan Wilson [00:15:12]:
Y'all, what in the actual frick? Gotta sip gotta sip the hot tea, y'all. Gotta sip the hot tea to keep it. But don't worry. Like I said, unlike those other AI, quote, unquote, influencers out there. I'm not an AI influencer. I just talk about AI, but I'm actually putting the work in. Right? I'm showing a picture on my screen. I am reading these documents.

Jordan Wilson [00:15:40]:
I am looking between the lines. Right? So, yeah, I'm gonna bring the receipts that the New York Times failed to bring in its legal argument later. Don't worry. Number 2. That's number 1, and we're gonna get into those things. Don't worry. Don't you worry. Yeah.

Jordan Wilson [00:15:57]:
Jackie, what in the actual freak? I don't understand it. Alright. Brian, it looks like Brian now wants 8 emojis. I don't know if anyone thinks it should be more. Alright. So here is what The other important things that no one is talking about. If The New York Times wins this case, It could be incredibly disruptive for the economy. Let me go on record.

Jordan Wilson [00:16:23]:
I do not think anyone will win this case. Like most other people, I believe it will be settled. There is too much at stake. There is too much for each side to lose. Right? Whether this ends up, whether a judge decides that this will be a bench trial or whether Judge decides it'll be a jury trial. I don't think it'll get there. I strongly believe that this will be settled. However And if I'm being honest, if the New York if the New York Times would have properly Submitted evidence, receipts, sourcing.

Jordan Wilson [00:16:57]:
This would have already been an open and closed case. Right. Because as I'm going to get to, OpenAI has pretty much admitted That they cannot have g the GPT model without training their model on copyrighted work. And like I talked about, they are now arguing That training a large language model like GPT is fair use even if it is on copyrighted work. Right? So they're not exactly arguing that they didn't do these things because the results are pretty clear Even though the New York Times did not properly do it. Right? But here's why in the small case That this does actually go to trial and that the New York Times does actually win this, which I think they do have the Capabilities too. It would be terrible terrible For the US economy, here's why. Current gen a growth will stall.

Jordan Wilson [00:18:04]:
Right. If this is litigated, it could be in the courts for months or years. And when that happens, You are going to see all the other big players in the Gen AI space, not freeze, but they are going to go much slower. Right. Jet AI development right now, you cannot keep up with it. We can't keep up with it. We spent hours a day on it. We can't keep up with it.

Jordan Wilson [00:18:28]:
You can't keep up with it. No one can keep up with it. Alright. If this actually goes to trial, it will be months or years. Gen AI growth will stall. And what does that mean? That means the magnificent seven's growth will be stunted. Alright? So this oh, so a lot of this is, You know, kind of kind of related to the stock market. Alright? A lot of it's related to The big gains that we saw in 2023.

Jordan Wilson [00:19:01]:
So if you don't know, the magnificent seven are kind of what a lot of people call the AI powered companies, the AI powered tech in companies. So that's, you know, these mega cap, stocks such as Apple, Alphabet, the owner of Google, Microsoft, obviously involved in this lawsuit. Amazon, Meta, owner of Facebook, Instagram, etcetera, Tesla, and NVIDIA. Right. All of those companies now are leading with artificial intelligence. So If whatever reason that the New York Times actually takes this case to trial and wins it again, unlikely, But possible. I think the economy in 2024 is not going to be what it was in 2023. Right? And we're gonna get into this more, but the S and P grew by more than 20%.

Jordan Wilson [00:20:01]:
When everyone expected 2023 to be a recession. The S and P grew by 20 plus percent, largely fueled by the magnificent seven by these AI heavy companies. Whether you want to admit it or not, AI in the hype and the development around it propelled the entire US economy in 2023. Alright. Y'all still with me, livestream audience? Let me know. Let me know what questions you have too. Let me know what questions you have. Alright.

Jordan Wilson [00:20:36]:
So now that we got the beginning, We got some of the, you you know, the basics. And we went to the end, and I talked about the 2 points that I'm gonna dissect a little bit further here. I need to get all my cards on the table because I know what probably some of you are thinking. Oh, Jordan. You're biased. You talk about AI all the time. You have an AI media company, Everyday AI. You're gonna side on the team of AI.

Jordan Wilson [00:21:02]:
You're gonna side with OpenAI. Well, person out there saying that. No. Wrong. Let me tell you why. I was a former journalist for nearly 10 years. Yes. If you're joining on the live stream, you have the I wouldn't say treat, but, yeah, that's me with long, Shaggy hair.

Jordan Wilson [00:21:23]:
I don't know. 15 or so years ago, I was a I was a Pulitzer, won a Pulitzer fellowship, and that's me doing some reporting there. Right? But I came into this, right, very cautiously, but from an unbiased opinion. I came in the middle Because whether I want to admit it or not, I have a rooting interest on each side. Right? I'm a journalist at heart. I don't wanna see, the concept of honest reporting and first class journalism like the New York Times go away, But at the same time, I'm an AI enthusiast. I help companies Leverage generative AI, and so much of that is GPT. So I do wanna get all my cards out on the table that I technically have a rooting interest for each side.

Jordan Wilson [00:22:12]:
So before I spent countless hours diving into this, I was unbiased. I still am unbiased, but I'm leaning one way. Alright. So we need a bit more context too before we dive into these 2 big aspects that no one is talking about. Alright. Number 1, or this is actually the only point, the only additional piece of context that we need before we dive in To these 2 big points, but OpenAI isn't exactly denying using copyrighted materials to train its models. Alright. So they actually just Yesterday, there was a couple news stories, and OpenAI essentially said it was impossible To create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted materials.

Jordan Wilson [00:23:04]:
Okay? So what happened Yesterday, in a submission to the House of Lords, which is a branch of the UK Parliament, OpenAI submitted some documents. And in this document, I have it on the screen here, and I'm going to read it verbatim. Ready? They said because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression, including blog posts, photographs, inform posts, scraps of software code, and government documents. It would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials. Right? I don't know how that reads to you, but the way that reads to most people is OpenAI say, yep. We use copyrighted materials unique copyrighted materials to train a large language model. So it's kinda like the non denial denial. Right? Cecilia, yes.

Jordan Wilson [00:24:02]:
Cecilia, thank you. Cecilia asking, I assume you didn't read the complaint through chat GPT to confirm. No. I showed hey. I showed I showed my screen. I actually read it like a human. Right? And I and I read exhibit j as well, which I thought was going to be the smoking gun, But was a big nothing burger. Alright.

Jordan Wilson [00:24:23]:
So now we're up to speed. Right? We know the recap. We know the 2 big points that we're gonna make. We know the little bit of context, and I threw all my cards on the table. So, hopefully, you can see, yes, I am unbiased. Alright. So now let's dive in a little bit more into the 2 specific huge implications that no one is talking about. Number 1, like I said, the New York Times 69 page filing is outstandingly amateurish.

Jordan Wilson [00:24:54]:
Y'all, again, I'm not a lawyer. Lawyer like, I know there's lawyers in the comments. There's lawyers listening on the podcast. Please Check the show notes. Come join the live stream on LinkedIn and let us know. Right? But I was reading different legal opinions, you know, different lawyers, opined on, you know, actually interpreting, the case and most, I guess most, legal opinions I saw kind of sided with what OpenAI was saying that, that It didn't seem like the New York Times, was being a 100% truthful. It didn't seem like that. Right? That's that's, you know, one of the main points that OpenAI, released in their statement.

Jordan Wilson [00:25:42]:
Let me just kind of go over the 4 main points that OpenAI released, right, because we're gonna be digging into this 69 page filing, a little bit. So OpenAI had 4 main points. They said, number 1, we collaborate with news organizations in our creating new opportunities. They're saying number 2, training is fair use, but we provide an opt out because it's the right thing to do. Number 3, regurgitation, which we're gonna talk about what that means in a second. They said it is a rare bug that we are working to drive to 0. And number 4, the New York Times is not telling the full story. Oh, zinger.

Jordan Wilson [00:26:21]:
I guarantee you. Former journalist in me, I'm sure I have old colleagues who are now at the New York Times. They saw that, and that one hurt. That one's a gut punch. That one's a gut punch. Alright. So let's dive a little bit into this, 69 page filing. And why I am saying it is egregiously Egregiously bad.

Jordan Wilson [00:26:49]:
It is so poorly done. This is laughable. I literally could not believe that this was actually submitted by the New York Times and its legal team to a court. Because to me, this shows a gross understanding of either how large language models actually work or an intentional attempt To just not tell the full story like OpenAI is alleging. Alright. So now I'm sharing on my screen, I'm gonna go ahead, if you're joining us live here. I'm gonna maybe make myself a little small there so you can see this a little better if you are joining us live. Alright? So here's what the majority of both the filing, 69 page filing, and exhibit j relied on.

Jordan Wilson [00:27:40]:
It showed, like on the screen here, an output from g p t 4 on the left In the actual text from The New York Times on the right. So what The New York Times is saying in their filing is that, hey. You know, we told, Chat GPT. We gave it some prompts and asked it to finish New York Times stories that were fully copyrighted. Alright? This evidence is damning. It's clearly almost verbatim. Right? There's different articles that they that they show, but, you know, somewhere from I'd say most of the the excerpts that they show are somewhere between, you know, 80 to 90 9% verbatim. Some of them are nearly verbatim except for 1 word.

Jordan Wilson [00:28:28]:
But you see everything in red on the left side and the right side equals a verbatim output, and everything in the black is the only thing that is unique. What is shown in the black is the only thing that is unique output, on the left versus in the black, the unique output or what was not copied over on the right. Alright? And then I want to draw your attention to something. At the bottom, there is a source and a citation. Right? But everyone's saying, oh, Jordan. You said that they didn't source and they didn't cite. They didn't. They only cited and only sourced and only provided receipts on their work on The New York Times.

Jordan Wilson [00:29:16]:
Sharing a screenshot or copying and pasting content and saying, oh, this was a GPT output, That is useless. That is useless because the thing that obviously, you know, most of y'all listening to this show probably understand Is you can get an AI model to say anything. Literally anything. You can, quote, unquote, jailbreak it or Which is what a lot of people are alleging, including, you know, OpenAI isn't fully saying this, but they are saying New York Times is not telling the full story And that they are manipulating you know, they literally said that and I quote From OpenAI, it seems they, meaning the New York Times, intentionally manipulated prompts, often including lengthy excerpts of article in order to get our model to regurgitate or in order to get the model to spit back, this content that was used in this training data. However, showing a screenshot means nothing because you can go into any chat in chat GPT or any other large language model. You can copy and paste the entirety of the text as an example from the New York Times. And then in the chat, you can say, hey. Fill this in, and it will do it.

Jordan Wilson [00:30:34]:
Right? Like the New York Times says, it appears that they intentionally Did not include the receipts for their chat GPT or their GPT outputs. It is so easy. It is so easy. I did it, and I'm sharing it in the newsletter, and I'm gonna show it on the screen here. I did in a couple of minutes What? The New York Times and its legal team failed to do, and they failed to provide that. And y'all, yes, we're getting our 1st off script rant here. I need to put into context that, again, I don't think this is going to trial. But if it does, This could in theory be one of the most monumental cases in decades.

Jordan Wilson [00:31:26]:
And the New York Times and its legal team seemingly did not put in the work, did not cite sources. Alright. So they're only sourcing or citing their own work. They're not sourcing or citing the g p two four output, which is extremely easy to do. They're not keeping receipts. Here's a fun one. Little story time. This I'm showing on the screen here, I was a former journalist.

Jordan Wilson [00:31:59]:
Right? You might be saying, oh, Jordan, easier said than done. No. It's so easy. It's so easy. A group of college journalists can do it. Alright? So when I was, when I was a a college journalist, we had a daily Newspaper, and we wrote a story, that alleged the president of the university who was a former US senator Plagiarized his dissertation. Huge accusations. Right? Just like what the New York Times is alleging against OpenAI is a huge act like, accusation.

Jordan Wilson [00:32:34]:
Right? But what I'm showing on the screen here is how you properly Source and cite each side. You don't cite and source one side because the other side, like OpenAI said, could be Completely manipulated. Sharing screenshots in a brief means nothing. Sharing copy and paste text on the left and right means Absolutely nothing unless you do it like this, unless you do it like a bunch of college journalists did. Hey. Shout out. Shout out all my daily Egyptian, former coworkers. Yeah.

Jordan Wilson [00:33:08]:
Yeah. This story did pretty good. Right? It won a story of the year, but that's not what we're here about. We're here for improper citing. Okay. And also, speaking of screenshots, Some things didn't seem right in this brief. Right? Again, we're gonna be sharing the brief in our newsletter, but what is this? Hey, live stream audience. What does this look like to you? I don't wanna say it out loud, but I'll try to describe this.

Jordan Wilson [00:33:41]:
And this is where I think that one of the issues that Open Eye OpenAI had In its, rebuttal from yesterday saying that it seems like the New York Times intentionally manipulated prompts, but this is one of the excerpts, that they shared in the, complaint in the 69 complaint. And it looks like there's something weird going on there. It looks like they're sharing 1 excerpt from a shared prompt, but There's a weird line going. Right? It almost it's it's obviously not photocopied because it's digital, but that's literally what it looks like. It looks like it was photocopied. And, again, some people online are saying like, oh, this isn't really ChatGPT. Yes. It is, FYI, right, because it says anonymous in And chat GPT.

Jordan Wilson [00:34:34]:
So this is what happens, FYI, and this is why it's even more maddening. So this view where it shows the, the user as anonymous, this is when you share a chat. So every chat within chat g p t, you can click a share button. And when you share it with a third party, this is the view that they get. It will say anonymous as the user and then in green or in purple, depending on Which model you use, you will see chat g p t. So this already goes to show that if they wanted to, The New York Times and its legal team could have included the links. Where are the links? They're not in the 69 page filing unless my eyes, literally bugged out from being so tired while reading this, And the command app couldn't find it, right, as I score like, as I go through these documents multiple times, but it's not there. It's not there.

Jordan Wilson [00:35:37]:
Alright. Yeah. Yeah. Douglas Douglas says the New York Times is protecting its sources. LOL. It doesn't right? It doesn't matter because here's why. I'm gonna show you this in a second. Oh, the receipts get deeper.

Jordan Wilson [00:35:52]:
Alright. So the New York Times complaint failed even ready? This gets even better. They failed in its own attempt to show that chat g p t gosh. I got y'all. I can't help but to laugh. It's so sad. I'm sad for the state of journalism, but the New York Times and its legal team complaint failed in its own attempt to show that Chat gbt re regurgitates copyrighted works Because I'm gonna show you here. It went through this in the in the complaint, but it said, you know, go it got the next section wrong.

Jordan Wilson [00:36:26]:
Alright. So let's, as it's trying to prove that OpenAI is is kind of copying its copyrighted materials verbatim line by line, It got it wrong, y'all. I kid you not. Yeah. Okay. So here on the left, This is the screenshot from the new or sorry. Oh, man. You know what? My, alright.

Jordan Wilson [00:36:52]:
Well, we'll have to put this in the, in the newsletter. My, my tiredness accidentally replaced one of the, One of the screenshots here. But hey. Good thing I'm not submitting this to a court. Right? But the New York Times in their filing, which I'll share this the the correct one in the newsletter, But they asked chat GPT, and I just redid their prompt in GPT 3. And they said, you know, how does this, You know, guy, you know, guy article go. Right? I'll share the prompts. And it got the 1st paragraph verbatim correct To the actual paragraph which you see on the right.

Jordan Wilson [00:37:29]:
Then in the prompt that chat g p t or or sorry, that, the New York Times shared in its filing, It said, that's great. What's the next sentence? In the next sentence that it got and that it submitted in its filing was not actually the next sentence, y'all. But I just did this in GPT 3.5, and I did it in the OpenAI Playground. Right? If you try to do this in GPT 4, it looks like it's been shut down. But if you do this in g p t three, you might have to do it, you know, 1 or 5 times because it's important to remember. All a large language model truly is is The smartest version of autocomplete ever. But here's what happens. In in so many cases, The, copyrighted works, that are, you you know, being discussed or that are being disputed, it's not just in chat g p t.

Jordan Wilson [00:38:26]:
There are multiple, and OpenAI pointed this out, in its refuting claim. There are multiple other places where this content exists. So it's seemingly other people out there, random websites, random blogs, whatever, have also reproduced this work Without respect to the New York Times proper copyright. Because, y'all, that's not what is in question here. It is clear. It is clear Because I'm literally showing it to you on the screen right now. It is clear that you can reproduce verbatim copyrighted works. That's never been in question.

Jordan Wilson [00:39:03]:
It is actually Fairly difficult, I would say, to use any type of generative AI, any large language model. Like we talked about on the show yesterday, Any AI image generator, it is hard to use any of these things without technically breaking copy copyright law. Right? Because that's how models are built. That's how they're trained. They're trained on essentially the entirety of the open Internet and more. Alright. So even in the filing, The New York Times did not get it right. I got it right.

Jordan Wilson [00:39:34]:
I replicated it, And I have the receipts. Unlike The New York Times, I am actually going to share the link. Right? And that's why this was so maddening. Right. Because how the New York Times and its legal team put this together because, again, They got one of these pieces wrong. There was this weird line in the screenshot. Didn't seem right. OpenAI knows that they vary that the the New York Times and its legal team very well could have Shared the links to the chats so you can go up and see, yes.

Jordan Wilson [00:40:13]:
This was done above par, And it's not hard to get it to reproduce it in that way. But instead, this filing failed. It was an enormous fumbling of the bag that will probably, depending on how this case turns out, This will probably be taught in law schools in the future of what not to do, again, depending on how this turns out. Alright. So, yes, I shared. We actually went through and did this whole thing in its entirety. We will share it with you. Here's the correct one.

Jordan Wilson [00:40:50]:
Alright. So after I read through this filing, right, there's all these references to exhibit j. There's no other exhibits that I can find. I looked. I I looked and I searched command aft exhibit a through exhibit z. There's only exhibit j, and I didn't see anywhere on the Internet that had exhibit j. So I said, alright. I finally found it.

Jordan Wilson [00:41:11]:
It's not that hard. I'm a former former journalist. I can find things, and I'm an Internet geek. Yeah. Cecilia said I should share the podcast with OpenAI's legal team. Hey. I tagged them both. So hey.

Jordan Wilson [00:41:24]:
If anyone from the New York Times Or their legal team or OpenAI is is, listening to this. Here's everything out on the table. Receipts. Again, I technically have rooting interest for each sides or for each side. Alright. So I was expecting exhibit j to have all of their receipts. Here's the entirety of every chat so we know it's not manipulated like OpenAI is alleging. Here is the link so you can go see yourself.

Jordan Wilson [00:41:52]:
Right. All you need is a chat GPT account. You can click on the link. You can go back and read the entirety to make sure that nothing was manipulated. Guess what? Exhibit j was a nothing burger. Right? Here's what it did. It gave the URL the URL version of their article. It gave the prompt that they gave GPT, the response from GPT, the original end of the article as it appeared on their website, but guess what they didn't do? The most important information, sourcing, inciting, and showing non manipulated GPT 4 responses.

Jordan Wilson [00:42:28]:
Does no one understand how large language models work? If you show me a screenshot of anything, that means jack diddly squat y'all. I can get and you can get a large language model to say absolutely anything by just feeding it and giving it a role, and you say, hey. You in this chat, you forget all of your training and you only refer to you know, you you skip your system prompt. You only pay attention to this text that I put in there, And I'm gonna ask you to repeat it, and you and you repeat it. That's all it takes. And and and how how did no one At the New York Times, realize how crucial of an oversight this was. This is all they had. This is all they had.

Jordan Wilson [00:43:13]:
This was exhibit j. A 100 examples of this. I scrolled through the whole thing. I read quite a few pages of this. They said, here's the prompt taken from the article, and here's the response. Left side, g p t four output, Right side actual text from The New York Times means nothing. Means absolutely nothing. This whole 69 page complaint that they filed, exhibit j.

Jordan Wilson [00:43:46]:
If whoever is on the other side, which obviously OpenAI knows this, but when it gets to the legal system, whether it's a judge or a jury, As long as OpenAI can explain this, which that will be the first thing they do, that this is without Merit. I could not agree with OpenAI more. How you're just gonna share some random text in a screenshot, which means absolutely nothing. It was so easy. New York Times and the legal team, all you had to do was cite and share the receipts. That's enough of this. Number 2. Alright.

Jordan Wilson [00:44:24]:
Tara and Jackie are saying I need merch with something. Alright. We're gonna get hey. We're gonna wrap this up quickly, y'all. This has been a long one. I don't wanna I don't want this to turn into an epic rant. It can just be a a normal rant. Number 2, I don't think this is going to trial.

Jordan Wilson [00:44:43]:
I could be wrong. Again, legal experts let me know. But if it does go to trial and the New York Times wins this case, Which again, they, in theory, could win it. You know, I hope that if it goes to court, they do a little bit better job of sourcing and citing this thing because their initial filing and their exhibit j was laughably. Alright. But Number 2, if the New York Times does win this case, it could be incredibly disruptive for the economy. Alright. Here's why.

Jordan Wilson [00:45:17]:
Let's first rewind about 15 months because in the latter parts of 2022, When all the economists were making their, predictions, no one was thinking that 2023 would be a good year for the US when it came to at least the economy, the indexes. Right? The Dow Jones, the Nasdaq, the S and P 500, etcetera. And guess what? Everyone said 2023 is gonna be a recession. The market's gonna tank, and everyone was completely wrong. Right. I'm sharing some screenshots. You know, Fortune, they're saying here's why, you know, everyone was, you know, economic pessimist back on A 2023 recession failed. Here's, you know, Forbes saying most well known economists got it wrong in 2023.

Jordan Wilson [00:46:07]:
2023 economy. It's because of generative AI, y'all. Yes. I brought the receipts on this too. Because a lot of people are gonna think, oh, if the New York Times, you know, wins this case, all that means it means nothing for the economy. You know, they'll say, oh, this just means that, you know, Google with their Bard are gonna gain bigger market share. You know, with with Claude and in, you know, Anthropic's They're gonna gain market share. No.

Jordan Wilson [00:46:36]:
Here's why. OpenAI and the GPT technology was years before everyone else. Our team has been using and paying for different services using the GPT technology since 2020? Is that right? Yeah. 2020 late 2020. Right? So for more than 3 years, there are Thousands of GPT products. There are literally startups valued at more than $1,000,000,000, and their main offering is GPT is GPT based. Right? In so many big companies now. Right.

Jordan Wilson [00:47:15]:
Like I talked about it yesterday. You know, Deloitte is investing 1,000,000,000 of dollars in their own large language model. Big banks, all of these large Financial consulting, big business institutions, Fortune 100, Fortune 5 100. Guess what? They are all using GPT. Right? According to OpenAI, 92% of Fortune 500 companies are building on GPT. Oh, so what happens if the New York Times wins this case? Well, they asked for GPT to be droid. Yes. The destruction of the models.

Jordan Wilson [00:47:52]:
Right? I can't even fathom that happening, but I guess There's a small likelihood it could. Right? So let's look at how important generative AI actually was to the economy in 2023. Alright. So the s and p 500 rallied 24% in 2023. And we talked about at the top of this show about, the AI heavy magnificent seven. Right? So Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, Tesla, Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet. You could argue that all of their major gains Could be attributed to their investments in AI companies or their own AI products and services themselves. All of those companies on the screen have massive AI products or I mean, even look at Tesla.

Jordan Wilson [00:48:38]:
You know, people say Tesla's not a car company. It's an artificial intelligence company. It's a data company. It's a machine learning, deep learning company. Right? So here's the thing. According to Morningstar analysts, it showed that the magnificent seven accounted for 70% of the S and Ps gains in 2023. Alright? 70% Of all of those gains in 2023 are because of the magnificent seven, these AI heavy companies. So what would happen if the New York Times wins this case? If GPT is destroyed as they are requesting? Things slow down.

Jordan Wilson [00:49:24]:
I don't know. My thought is if I'm Google, I'm not gonna release The new Gemini Ultra just yet. I'm gonna hit pause. Right? I might even pull, You know, the the Gemini Pro that they released last month. I don't know. Some companies could pause everything completely, Whether it's for a a couple of days, a couple of weeks, a couple of months. Because if something happens because, again, The New York Times is seeking an an unspecified amount of damages an unspecified amount of damages, but they know it's 1,000,000,000. They are seeking 1,000,000,000 of dollars of damages.

Jordan Wilson [00:50:00]:
Again, I don't think it's gonna happen, but what happens if it does? I think a lot of these gen AI companies, a lot of these large language model builders, They're gonna have no choice but to hit pause or to slow down. So In the unlikely event, I think the AI hype deflates. I think Gen AI development goes from an all out sprint to a quiet tiptoe, And that means this Gen AI gold rush that has propped up much of the US economy at least in 2023 Loses much of its strength. Alright, y'all. I have to take A quick sip of my still lukewarm hot tea and reflect on this. And I wanna know, as we wrap up today's show, I wanna know from y'all. What are your takes? I know that there were some some questions and some comments I couldn't get to, but I wanna know now what y'all think. Who is in the right here? Who is gonna win this? Mabert says exhibit j must stand for joking.

Jordan Wilson [00:51:13]:
Alright. Here's here's my take. Well, you already got my take for the last 40 40 some minutes, but This is obviously well, maybe not obviously, but this is likely heading toward a settlement. Right? It seemed like that's what both parties were working on before, and they couldn't get it done. You know, so OpenAI did, disclose that discussions were ongoing With The New York Times to figure something out, whether it was a licensing deal, you know, an off the book settlement, who knows? But they were in discussions with The New York Times all the way up through December 19th. And then OpenAI says that they learned about this lawsuit just like everyone else on December 27th from The New York Times. Okay. So clearly, there's a disconnect here.

Jordan Wilson [00:52:03]:
Clearly, there's a disconnect here, and I don't think that anyone is arguing If OpenAI is using copyrighted materials. Right? That's the crazy thing. I don't think anyone is technically disputing that. However, my biggest takeaway let me just recap as we wrap this show. Number 1, I cannot believe. And maybe I think this actually just goes to how important it is for all of you listening out there or all of you watching To know the to know the basics of generative AI. That's what we do here on the everyday AI show. Because I guarantee you, If whoever submitted this filing, right, this 69 page filing, If they had been listening to the show every day, if they had taken our free courses, etcetera, that 69 page complaint would have looked a lot different Because they would know that a screenshot means nothing.

Jordan Wilson [00:53:07]:
A screenshot of chat GPT means nothing. Copying and pasting And output from GPT and the New York Times means absolutely nothing. All they did there is they left the door wide open For OpenAI to come in and very easily shoot everything down. Right. Because like they said, like OpenAI said, and like I kinda discovered y'all, They had the links to share because that view that they shared in their 69 page filing, that view is only accessible when you get the link From a third party or if you share it with yourself. That is a view only link that they had. So they had it's it's it's not like you couldn't recreate it. New York Times and New York Times legal team, I did it in roughly 90 seconds using both GPT 3.5 and the OpenAI Playground.

Jordan Wilson [00:54:06]:
It is extremely easy to replicate it, and they got it wrong in their filing. Again, we'll share that part in the newsletter. When they said next sentence, it didn't even get the next sentence correct. So they shot themselves in the foot, and if it does ever go to trial, my gosh, I can't wait for OpenAI to pick that piece apart. So that's number 1. I think it's gonna get settled, and I think the New York Times really dropped the ball On putting together this argument, I don't think they fully even though it looked like they did fully understand because they're going into great explanations on How large language models are trained, but apparently, they thought a screenshot meant something when it means absolutely nothing. And number 2, if In the small, small, small likelihood, the New York Times does win this case, and they are actually granted what they requested, The destruction of GPT that has far reaching Implications for the US economy. When 92% 92% of Fortune 500 companies are currently using GPT, And there are thousands of companies.

Jordan Wilson [00:55:20]:
That that's all they that's all they have. Right? They're essentially just a GPT offering or a GPT wrapper. What happens then? What happens if for for for the millions or the tens of millions of people out there who have already integrated GPT into their workflow? Things will get bleak if the New York Times actually wins this case, if They get what they ask for in the destruction of the GPT large language model. Alright. We got Jackie said thank you for the infotainment. You're welcome, Jackie. Monica. Monica said if the filing is so egregious, any chance The New York Times did this intentionally? I don't know.

Jordan Wilson [00:56:04]:
I would sure hope not, but that is that is literally what OpenAI is alleging. Right. OpenAI said that, that the New York Times, and I quote, Intentionally manipulating our models to regurgitate is not inappropriate use of our technology and is against our terms of service. And then they said, It seems they, the New York Times, intentionally manipulated prompts, often including lengthy excerpts of articles in order to get our model To regurgitate. So, Monica, I don't know if they did this intentionally. However, Any I'd say just about anyone knows. You can share a link That shows this. Right? They clearly had the link because the screenshot that they shared is that that view is only accessible if you are viewing it from a link that was shared.

Jordan Wilson [00:57:03]:
So they had the link. So was there a reason that they just did screenshots? Probably. Was there a a a reason why they didn't share links? Probably, but I don't know. So, yes, either it was, intentionally manipulated, like OpenAI is alleging or it is the highest profile, like, legal fumble That I can remember. Right? I don't it's it's not like I follow legal case clo places cases closely, but, y'all, I showed a group of college journalists doing this correctly. If you're doing a side by side comparison, you have to cite and source each side. You don't just show 1 and then, just, hey. Take our word for this GPT output.

Jordan Wilson [00:57:45]:
Take our word or our screenshots. No. Just share the link. I'm gonna do it in the newsletter. So speaking of that, thank you all for tuning in. If you haven't already, Go to your everyday AI.com. If this is your 1st episode, I'd say sorry, but also kind of you're welcome because We cut through the BS. We're not like the other people talking about AI out there who are just sharing some BS prompts and trying to get you to buy some garbage course.

Jordan Wilson [00:58:12]:
We are an AI media company. We do the research. We bring you the facts. No spin. No BS. So please go to your everyday AI .com. Sign up for that free daily newsletter. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Jordan Wilson [00:58:28]:
I'm gonna try to go through and answer any questions I didn't get to. Thank you for joining us. We hope to see you back for more tomorrow and every day with everyday AI. Thanks, y'all.

Gain Extra Insights With Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter to get more in-depth content on AI