←back to thread

195 points meetpateltech | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rpdillon ◴[] No.45900911[source]
I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't.

But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product.

In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm, so they have to trawl through private conversations OpenAI's customers have had with their service to see if they can find any.

It's quite literally a fishing expedition.

replies(9): >>45900955 #>>45901081 #>>45901082 #>>45901111 #>>45901248 #>>45901282 #>>45901672 #>>45901852 #>>45903876 #
1. otterley ◴[] No.45903876[source]
> This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm

It helps to read the complaint. If that was the case, the case would have been subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted) challenge and closed.

Complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...

See pages 60ff.