Recently, The New York Times issued a warning letter to a startup named Perplexity, demanding that they 'stop using our content.' This company, backed by Jeff Bezos, has been accused of using The New York Times' content without authorization in its AI summaries and other outputs. The letter stated that Perplexity's actions have allowed them to 'gain improper benefits' and violate copyright laws by using the publisher's 'carefully crafted, thoroughly researched, and edited news' without a license.

Recently, the renowned media outlet The New York Times sent a cease-and-desist letter to an AI startup named Perplexity, demanding that the company stop using its content. This news was first reported by The Wall Street Journal and has drawn widespread attention. In fact, this is not the first time The New York Times has clashed with AI companies over content usage issues. Last year, the paper filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, accusing it of illegally using their content while training AI models.

In a copyright lawsuit against The New York Times, OpenAI has requested access to the newspaper's internal research materials and documents in order to evaluate the validity of claims that ChatGPT copied content. The New York Times has opposed this request, arguing that it could pose a threat to press freedom. The core focus of the lawsuit is the scope of copyright assessment, with The New York Times insisting it only pertains to published articles, while OpenAI's lawyers are interested in internal documents to verify the accusations. The lawsuit also hints at future trends in AI training methods, which may increasingly rely on high-quality data rather than sheer volume.

The New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. OpenAI countersues The New York Times over hacking allegations as the conflict between generative AI models and copyright holders intensifies.

["OpenAI claims that The New York Times hired hackers to attack ChatGPT","OpenAI argues that the hiring of hackers by The New York Times is critical","The New York Times used prompts to attack ChatGPT","OpenAI retaliates against blatant violations of product usage terms","AI companies face a copyright lawsuit crisis similar to Google's","Internet companies selling data to AI companies","Proposal for the latest data selection research framework","AI-generated content accelerates its spread across the Internet","Large models admit to using AI-generated data"]

The New York Times is exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in its newsroom. A new team will attempt to assist reporting and submissions, focusing on the use of generative AI and machine learning technologies. News will still be written, edited, and reported by professional journalists.

The New York Times is hiring a senior editor dedicated to integrating generative AI tools into the newsroom. The editor will lead the use of GenAI tools in news editing, addressing both challenges and opportunities. The job advertisement states that the editor will help formulate guidelines for the use of GenAI, taking into account technological advancements and risks. The focus is on responsibly incorporating GenAI tools and showcasing high-potential projects. This initiative is expected to inspire other media to follow suit, paving the way for AI innovation in journalism.

News media such as The New York Times, CNN, and Reuters have started to block OpenAI's GPTBot web crawler, restricting it from accessing their content. GPTBot may scan web page content to help improve OpenAI's AI models, such as ChatGPT. The media is concerned about their content being used for AI training, but Google suggests that media content can be automatically accessed unless they choose to opt-out.

The New York Times has blocked OpenAI's web crawler GPTBot. OpenAI is unable to use The New York Times' content to train its AI models. The New York Times is considering legal action against OpenAI.

The New York Times is considering suing OpenAI because ChatGPT may compete with the newspaper's content. Both parties have engaged in multiple negotiations over a licensing agreement but have failed to reach an accord. The outcome of the lawsuit could have profound implications for the entire AI industry, necessitating the search for new training data and retraining of models.