FaceDeer

I mean, I don't really want to genocide America, but I guess if they've accepted that who am I to hold back?

I wouldn't call it crazy at this point.

And their Great Once, Wayne Getsky!

And yet if one wishes to ask:

Did they have the right to do that?

That is inherently the realm of lawyer speak because you're asking what the law says about something.

The alternative is vigilantism and "mob justice." That's not a good thing.

I've heard the distinction described as "it's a cult when the founder is still around making stuff up, it becomes a religion after he dies and his followers are left to continue doing that in his name."

Stable Diffusion was trained on the LIAON-5B image dataset, which as the name implies has around 5 billion images in it. The resulting model was around 3 gigabytes. If this is indeed a "compression" algorithm then it's the most magical and physics-defying ever, as it manages to compress images to less than one byte each.

Besides, even if we consider the model itself to be fine, they did not buy all the media they trained the model on.

That is a completely separate issue. You can sue them for copyright violation regarding the actual acts of copyright violation. If an artist steals a bunch of art books to study then sue him for stealing the art books, but you can't extend that to say that anything he drew based on that learning is also a copyright violation or that the knowledge inside his head is a copyright violation.

They're saying that the NYT basically forced ChatGPT to spit out the "infringing" text. Like manually typing it into Microsoft Word and then going "gasp! Microsoft Word has violated our copyright!"

The key point here is that you can't simply take the statements of one side in a lawsuit as being "the truth." Obviously the laywers for each side are going to claim that their side is right and the other side are a bunch of awful jerks. That's their jobs, that's how the American legal system works. You don't get an actual usable result until the judge makes his ruling and the appeals are exhausted.

In its suit, the Times alleges that

Emphasis added. Of course they're going to claim their copyright was violated, they don't have a case otherwise.

OpenAI alleges that the New York Times pulled a bunch of shady shenanigans to get the results they're claiming.

It remains to be seen how the case will be decided.