Exploring Memorization and Copyright Violation in Frontier LLMs: A Study of the New York Times v. OpenAI 2023 Lawsuit · HackerPapers discussions

Exploring Memorization and Copyright Violation in Frontier LLMs: A Study of the New York Times v. OpenAI 2023 Lawsuit — mentioned by fer

Wed, 17 Jun 2026 21:25:26 GMT

No evidence? >The court drew a line, however, when it came to the pirated books, which were downloaded without payment and kept in Anthropic’s library irrespective of whether they were used to train its LLMs. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-... >We apply a basic prompt template to bypass the refusal training and show that OpenAI models are currently less prone to memorization elicitation than models from Meta, Mistral, and Anthropic. We find that as models increase in size, especially beyond 100 billion parameters, they demonstrate significantly greater capacity…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Exploring Memorization and Copyright Violation in Frontier LLMs: A Study of the New York Times v. OpenAI 2023 Lawsuit — mentioned by comex

Tue, 24 Jun 2025 20:41:51 GMT

Yes and no. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Anthropic's LLMs had memorized the works so completely that "if each completed LLM had been asked to recite works it had trained upon, it could have done so", "almost verbatim". The judge assumed for the sake of argument that the allegation was true, and ruled that the conduct was fair use anyway due to the existence of an effective filter. Therefore there was no need to determine whether the allegation was actually true. So - yes, in the sense that the ruling suggests that distributing an open-weight LLM that memorized copyrighted works…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.