The main reason that it can't be fixed is that it has political or corporate operators and propaganda bots have taken over. There is always an agenda running through threads of social media even for mundane topics that seeking supremacy.

Even the article itself gives people a pause in order to avoid being blacklisted.

It basically says that they are watching you so you will self censor.

Printers?! Desktop?! They need to wheel the stuff in. Hilarious how far people go to save a few bucks.

- The pandemic did in fact tank the market - Wars never tank the market and they jack up the military industry so no one would have said that - High interest rates did tank the market once last year already and in the past because it provides for risk free gains - Tariffs did tank the market so Trump played the reversal games - Will AI tank the market? It will if it creates unemployment.

Diversifying does not stop the tanking. It will reduce the risk related to poor choices all at once

> Time does not need user logs to prove such a thing if it was true.

No it needs to show how often it happens to prove a point of how much impact its had.

Why would that matter, if people didn't use it as much, does it mean that it doesn't matter if there were few people?

> Why would that matter

Because its a copyright infringement case, so existence and the scale of the infringement is relevant to both whether there is liability and, if so, how much; the issue isn't that it is possible for infringement to occur.

You have to argue damages. It actually has to have cost NYT some money, and for that you need to know some extent.

We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either. They can get a hint of news and then produce their material.

OpenAI is also entitled to discovery. They can literally get every email and chat the times has and require from this point on they preserve such logs

> We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either

which is irrelevant at this stage. Its a legal principle that both sides can fairly discover evidence. As finding out how much openAI has infringed copyright is pretty critical to the case, they need to find out.

After all, if its only once or twice, thats a couple of dollars, if its millions of times, that hundreds of millions

Who cares? That's not a legal argument and it doesn't mean anything to this case.

Oh, I was unaware that Times was inventing a novel technology with novel legal questions.

It’s very impressive they managed to do such innovation in their spare time while running a newspaper and site

For the most part (there are a few exceptions), in the US lawsuits are not based on "possible" harm but actual observed harm. To show that, you need actual observed user behavior.

> Times can show that it is possible

The allegation is not that merely that infringement is possible; the actual occurrence and scale are relevant to the case.

Wouldn't think that they could use their voice. I had a serious shoulder injury and a surgery an all that. At first I tried my other arm but it would get tired. Voice conversion to text works really well nowadays. Voice to text worked for me.

These AIs have digested all the data in the past. There is no fingerprints anymore.

The question is whether AI itself is aware what the source is. It certainly knows the source.

No, apps can be prevented access. People can be disclosing private information.

Every other app on the planet that does not explicitly claim to be E2E encrypted is likely keeping your “private information” readily accessible in some way.

So in effect Times has the right to see user's data then.. How do they have the right to take a look at users data?

The Courts have broad leeway over document retention in a legal proceeding. The fact the documents are bring retained doesn't immediately imply plaintiffs get to see all of them.

There are myriad ways courts balance privacy and legal-interest concerns.

(The Times et al are alleging that OpenAI is aiding copyright violation by letting people get the text of news stories from the AI).

If people can get the text itself from AI, then anyone can then why would it need access to other people's data?

Does the Times believe that other people can get this text while it can't get it itself? To prove that the AI is stealing the info, Times does not need access to people's logs. All it has to show is that it can get that text.

This sounds like Citizen United again to AstroTurf and gets access to logs with a fake cause.

It's not whether people can get the data. They need to prove people are getting the data.

So in effect if a lot of people don't get the data now, then it will never matter, is that right?

That logic makes no sense because if they don't get it right now then it does not mean that they will not get it in future.

If Times and its staff can get the text, is all that matters because the use and rate of data usage is not material as it can change any time in future.

Court cases aren't generally about hypothetical futures. There is a specific claim of harm and the plaintiff has a legal right to the evidence needed to prove the harm if there's reasonable suspicion it exists.

Capone isn't allowed to burn his protection racket documents claiming he's protecting the privacy of the business owners who paid protection money. The Court can take steps to protect their privacy (including swearing the plaintiff to secrecy on information learned immaterial to the case, or pre-filtering the raw data via a party trusted by the Court).

I looked up the bird..

They are smart!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W7hEUGtv4U