In an interview with Bloomberg Originals host Emily Chang, Mohan stated, “From a creator’s perspective, when a creator uploads their hard work to our platform, they have certain expectations. One of those expectations is that the terms of service is going to be abided by. It does not allow for things like transcripts or video bits to be downloaded, and that is a clear violation of our terms of service. Those are the rules of the road in terms of content on our platform.”

A lot of uncertainty and controversy still surrounds how OpenAI trains Sora, along with ChatGPT and DALL-E, with The Wall Street Journal recently reporting the company plans to use YouTube video transcriptions to train GPT-5. On the other hand, OpenAI competitor Google is apparently respecting the rules — at least when it comes to YouTube (which it owns). Google’s AI model Gemini requires similar data to learn but Mohan claims it only uses certain videos, depending on permissions are given in each creator’s licensing contract.

The post YouTube CEO warns OpenAI that training models on its videos is against the rules appeared first on Best News.

“AI has the disruptive potential of changing our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day lives. We must balance the immense potential of AI with the crucial need for ethical guidelines and protections.” said Congressman Schiff in a statement. He added that the bill “champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets. This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.” Organizations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), SAG-AFTRA and WGA have shown support for the bill.

If the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act passes, companies would need to file all relevant data use to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before introducing the AI tool to the public. They would also have to provide the same information retroactively for any existing tools and make updates if they considerably altered datasets. Failure to do so would result in the Copyright Office issuing a fine — the exact number would depend on a company’s size and past infractions. To be clear, this wouldn’t do anything to prevent AI creators from using copyrighted work, but it would provide transparency on which materials they’ve taken from. The ambiguity over use was on full display in a March Bloomberg interview with OpenAI CTO Mira Murati, who claimed she was unsure if the tool Sora took data from YouTube, Facebook or Instagram posts.

The bill could even give companies and artists a clearer picture when speaking out against or suing for copyright infringement — a fairly common occurrence. Take the New York Times, which sued OpenAI and Microsoft for using its articles to train chatbots without an agreement or compensation, or Sarah Silverman, who sued OpenAI (a frequent defendant) and Meta for using her books and other works to train their AI models.

The entertainment industry has also been leading calls for AI protections. AI regulation was a big sticking point in the SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes last year, ending only when detailed policies around AI went into their contracts. SAG-AFTRA has recently voiced its support for California bills requiring consent from actors to use their avatars and from heirs to make AI versions of deceased individuals. It’s no surprise that Congressman Schiff represents California’s 30th district, which includes Hollywood, Burbank and Universal City.

Musicians are echoing their fellow creatives, with over 200 artists signing an open letter in April that calls for AI protections, the Guardian reported. “This assault on human creativity must be stopped,” the letter, issued by the Artist Rights Alliance, states. “We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artists’ voices and likenesses, violate creators’ rights, and destroy the music ecosystem.” Billie Eilish, Jon Bon Jovi and Pearm Jam were among the signatories.

The post US bill proposes AI companies list what copyrighted materials they use appeared first on Best News.

According to the report, The New York Times' reach hasn't changed on Facebook and other social media platforms. Additionally, recent tweets by former President Barack Obama that include NYT links saw less engagement when compared to his other tweets. For example, when Obama shared articles about healthcare costs, his posts reached fewer than 800,000 users. Most of his posts reach a minimum of 10 million users.

While it's unclear what exactly is causing the drop in user reach, this wouldn't be the first time Elon Musk's X appeared to be affecting user engagement. In August, X was reported to be interfering with links to Mastodon, Bluesky, Threads, Substack and of course—The New York Times, to make them load noticeably slower. At the time, it appeared that the high-profile websites affected were only big names that Musk publicly attacked in the past.

X and The New York Times could not be immediately reached for comment.

The post X is allegedly limiting user reach to posts that link to the New York Times appeared first on Best News.

The NYT claims that OpenAI and Microsoft, the makers of Chat GPT and Copilot, “seek to free-ride on The Times’s massive investment in its journalism” without having any licensing agreements. In one part of the complaint, the NYT highlights that its domain (www.nytimes.com) was the most used proprietary source mined for content to train GPT-3.

It alleges more than 66 million records, ranging from breaking news articles to op-eds, published across the NYT websites and other affiliated brands were used to train the AI models. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants in the case have used “almost a century’s worth of copyrighted content,” causing significant harm to the Times’ bottom line. The NYT also says that OpenAI and Microsoft’s products can “generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style.” This mirrors other complaints from comedians and authors like Sarah Silverman and Julian Sancton who claim OpenAI has profited off their works.

"We respect the rights of content creators and owners and are committed to working with them to ensure they benefit from AI technology and new revenue models," an OpenAI spokesperson told Engadget. In an email, the representative explained that the two parties were engaged in ongoing "productive conversations" and the company described the lawsuit as unexpected. "We are surprised and disappointed with this development," the OpenAI spokesperson told Engadget. Still, OpenAI is hopeful that the two will find a "mutually beneficial way to work together."

If the lawsuit makes any headway, it could create opportunities for other publishers to pursue similar legal action and make training AI models for commercial purposes more costly. Competitors in the space, like CNN and BBC News have already tried limiting what data AI web crawlers can scrape for training and development purposes.

While it’s unclear if the NYT is open to a licensing agreement after its earlier negotiations failed, leading to the lawsuit, OpenAI has reached a few deals recently. This month, it agreed to pay publisher Axel Springer for access to its content in a deal projected to be worth millions. And articles from Politico and Business Insider will be made available to train OpenAI’s next gen AI tools as part of a three year deal. It also previously made a deal with the AP to use its archival content dating back to 1985. Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.

Update, December 27 2023, 8:36 PM ET: This story has been to include comments from an OpenAI spokesperson on the lawsuit.

The post The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement appeared first on Best News.

The Times' latest DMCA notice was filed against Chase Wackerfuss, the person behind a Wordle clone called "Reactle." In its notice, the publication said that GitHub must delete the infringing repository and the hundreds of forked repositories based on it. Wackerfuss already took down Reactle's GitHub page — he told 404 Media it wasn't worth getting into a legal battle with The New York Times and just deleted his repository. According to the publication, though, it was forked 1,900 times before it was removed and was used to create versions of Wordle in dozens of different languages, as well as spinoffs with various twists. Some of those spinoffs turned Wordle into crossword puzzles and two-player games, while others transformed it into guessing games that use emoji and other symbols instead of letters and words.

Based on the takedown request The Times sent to Reactle, the newspaper is claiming ownership of the name Wordle, as well as its mechanics. "The Times's Wordle copyright includes the unique elements of its immensely popular game, such as the 5×6 grid, green tiles to indicate correct guesses, yellow tiles to indicate the correct letter but the wrong place within the word, and the keyboard directly beneath the grid," the DMCA notice reportedly read. "This gameplay is copied exactly in the repository, and the owner instructs others how to knock off the game and create an identical word game." Seeing as Wordle has a pretty simple premise, though — I was easily able to create a simpler but similar word-guessing game when I took a basic programming course — this takedown request likely won't spell the end for its clones and alternatives.

The post The New York Times is cracking down on Wordle clones appeared first on Best News.