Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@carnage4life I still don't get how they're "competing". Their training data is like two years old, right? What kind of an idiot would get their news from an LLM?

@christianschwaegerl @jeffjarvis That's what a subset of social media users use the service for, but certainly not all of them. Many people run their accounts with no desire to "maximize reach". Many use it to promote their own copyrighted works. The idea that everyone on social media is happy to give their content away to journalists sounds suspiciously like the argument that the AI companies make about the journalists' content.

@SecurityWriter @jeffjarvis @lisamelton Sure they do journalism. But they use others' content to do it all the time. I.e. quoting other articles and embedding tweets. If this lawsuit succeeds, it erodes the fair use rights that allow them to do so. Imagine a world where, to quote/embed a tweet in an article, you have to first have a signed contract with the author. Would that hurt the big institutions with legal departments more, or independent writers?

@christianschwaegerl @jeffjarvis Nobody else is held to such a high standard for fair use, including NYT themselves. Why should the AI companies have fewer rights than the rest of us?

i.e. to use your own argument, "If [journalism] companies want to use content (like embedding tweets), they should be obliged to license it and only be allowed to use it with link included and for fact-based answers not mixed into information trash."
That sounds outrageous.

@MarkRNay Sure they do. If NYT writes a story about how a company is corrupt and some investor at MS has a subscription, reads the article, and shorts the stock for that company, they had every right to make that profit from the content that they paid for.

@christianschwaegerl @jeffjarvis There's a pretty wide gulf between reselling the original content in question directly and using that content as one input of many to inform separate business processes.

It's not much different from a wall street firm deriving advice from WSJ and then selling it as a digest to their investors. As long as the end work is transformative and adds value, it's fair use.

@EmilyG Isn't that just part of being the choir, though? Yeah, you hear the sermon 4 times each week and you start to notice and get annoyed by some of the structural elements that seem repetitive, but to the people the sermon was meant for, those structural elements contain crucial context necessary to understand the later message.

@baldur They're gonna try to kill everyone's (including their own) right to fair use, and then they're gonna demand we pat them on the back for it 🤦‍♂️

@LeftToPonder https://journa.host/@w7voa/111649175830781808

@Darryl Bingo. If we were actively invading native reservations instead of just ignoring them to death, the world *should* call us out on that.

@carnage4life Automating shitty work *is* a humanitarian mission.

It's only when you stuff it into our grossly unequal economic system that it gets used as a bludgeon.

@JoshuaHolland And apparently the ADL are buying it 🤦‍♂️

I'm not sure how much more transparent a statement issued by a publicist could be.