If they didn't want to share their content, why did they allow it to be scraped?
If they did want to share their content, why do they care (hint: $88 billion)?
Or is it that they wanted to share their content with Google and other search engines in order to bring in readers but now that an AI was trained on it they are angry?
What wrong thing did OpenAI do specific to using Common Crawl?
Didn't most companies use Common Crawl? Excepting Google, who had already scraped the whole damn Internet anyway and just used their search index?
Is it legal or not to scrape the web?
If I scrape the web, is it legal to train a transformer on it? Why or why not?
To me, this is an incredibly open-and-shut case. You put something on the web, people will read that something. If that is illegal, Google is illegal.
Oh, and do you see the part in the article where they are butthurt that it can reproduce the NYT style?
> "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.
Mimics its expressive style. Oh golly the robots can write like they're smug NYT reporters now--better sue!
It appears that the NYT changed their terms of service in August to disallow their content in Common Crawl[0]. Wasn't GPT-4 trained far before August?
0]: https://www.adweek.com/media/the-new-york-times-updates-term...