AFAIK the IP deal with Microsoft only covers development before AGI.

So at any point OpenAI could declare that a sufficient degree of AGI has been achieved and thus return to its philanthropic mission. With GPLed models and all.

However, at this point the employees expect a multi-million cash-out for each of them. So the philanthropic mission seems to be gone out the window.

And probably that’s also the way Sam Altman got back into the CEO role. By maximizing the expected eventual cash-out for the employees which threatened to leave otherwise.

Luckily MS is now on the board so they’ll have a say in when AGI is declared

It’s literally in the contract such a distinction is at OpenAIs discretion

Technically firing CEO was also at the board's discretion, so I'm dubious whether that means anything at this point.

The lawsuit won't be about the clause, it would be about the definition of AGI.

> I don't think the lawsuit has any merit

The lawsuit fundamentally has merit. It asks a huge open question that no one knows the answer to. The outcome will be extraordinarily impactful. The question must be answered at some point.

The case has merit even if NYT loses across the board.

I can see how someone can disagree with the NYT position but the idea that it lacks merit is wild!

AI might be the defining issue of copyright law for decades. There are so many open questions, and this seems like just the start.

> The question must be answered at some point.

agreed. in the same way Colorado supreme court ruled trump can't be on the ballot to force scotus to rule i think is the same reasoning here. get an answer earlier rather than later.

How is the question being asked different from the Google Books case?

You’re not just display the contents of copyrighted works publicly, they’re selling access. This flips the script for the 1st factor of the Fair Use test. Additionally, by selling it to people who use it to get news summaries, you can argue you damage the market for a NY Times subscription, which triggers the 4th factor.

I don't think anybody has claimed that OpenAI is causing NYT subscriptions to go up. NYT has even expressly made the claim they're losing potential revenue.

> [1] On the most important factor, possible economic damage to the copyright owner, [Judge] Chin wrote that "Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

For the good of the world, let's hope the NYT loses across the board. It's basically behaving like a copyright troll here.

I am of opposite opinion. I think it is unreasonable to train AI using copyrighted information without permission from the copyright holder, at least if it is done to create a proprietary product. It is probable even unreasonable if the end result would not be proprietary but at least that would benefit the world more.