LLMs are useful for sifting through large data sets and digesting content and its definitely driving up zero-click searches, which Google and Bing were already doing by giving instant answers, reducing the chance of click-through to sites that could earn revenue from ads or paid subs so I get the gripe, but how will this end?

Content can live without LLMs, LLMs can't live without content and now creators of that content want a piece of the pie.

Do LLM companies just settle with the big guys and set up sweetheart deals like search engines and social media have done, and forget about the little guy? To me the obvious answer would be revenue share via the Lightning network, but that sure is not going to happen, so interested to see what borked solution they propose, if anything

I don't think LLMs have really found a real business model and path to sustainable monetisation yet, so how will they factor in revenue shares?

I'm loathe to side with the NYT, however its hard to imagine how they don't prevail in this case.....I mean if any functioning copyright law is to remain intact.

However we are increasingly late-stage empire where multiple legal contradictions are simultaneously being propped up somehow....so perhaps OpenAI survives.

If they should win, I'm not exactly sure how "AI" will be trained in the future? Would the AI generated answers need to also include citations for which parts came from which sources?

I'm glad it's messy as Microsoft been scanning free code on github(they own it) then making it their own propriety version and charging up, leaving devs starving.

Fuck copyright. AI will consume all. We must adapt or die.

Billionaires Sue Billionaires and Billionaires Over LLM Use of Paywalled Online Content.

If the problem is that there were no quotes and insufficient referencing then the court should dismiss it, as they did with Claudine Gay. Or maybe that's the issue, after Harvard's legal threats, NYT needs to generate their own legal fees?