> it's clearly not helping their market value if people are checking on ChatGPT instead of reading a NYT article.
People are not using ChatGPT as a replacement for current news, and because of hallucinations, no one should be using it for past news either. I wouldn't remotely call ChatGPT a competitor of NYT traffic, like I would Reuters or other news outlets.
The intended result is clearly to supplant other information sources in favor of people getting their information from ChatGPT. Why should it matter to legality that the tech isn't good enough for the goal?
> T. Why should it matter to legality that the tech isn't good enough for the goal?
Because if it is not good enough, then it is not a market substitute.
The laws cares if it is a market substitute and if there are damages. If it sucks, then there aren't damages, which matters for the 4th factor of fair use.
People are not using ChatGPT as a replacement for current news, and because of hallucinations, no one should be using it for past news either. I wouldn't remotely call ChatGPT a competitor of NYT traffic, like I would Reuters or other news outlets.