Take estimated losses of the NYT from this "innovation" and multiply by 10^x where is "x" high enough to make tech companies stop and think before they break laws next time. That would be my approach at least.
The training isn't the issue per se, it's the regurgitation of verbatim text (or close enough to be immediately identifiable) within a for-profit product. Worse still that the regurgitation is done without attribution.
The legal argument, which I'm sure you are very well aware of, is that training a model on data, reorganizing, and then presenting that data as your own is copyright infringement.
Agreed, it is unclear. It's also a very commonly discussed issue with generative AI and there's been a significant amount of buzz around this. Is the NYT testing the legal waters? Maybe. Will this case set precedent? Yes. Is this a silly, random, completely unhinged case to bring?
Can you elaborate a bit more? That’s actually just a claim, not a legal argument.
Copyright law allows for transformative uses that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Are LLM’s not transformative?