This is the best summary I could come up with:

According to judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, authors behind three separate lawsuits—including Sarah Silverman, Michael Chabon, and Paul Tremblay—have failed to provide evidence supporting any of their claims except for direct copyright infringement.

Further, the authors cited examples of ChatGPT referencing their names, which would seem to suggest that some CMI remains in the training data.

Similarly, allegations of “fraudulent” unfair conduct—accusing OpenAI of “deceptively” designing ChatGPT to produce outputs that omit CMI—“rest on a violation of the DMCA,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

The only claim under California’s unfair competition law that was allowed to proceed alleged that OpenAI used copyrighted works to train ChatGPT without authors’ permission.

To shore up the tossed copyright claims, authors would likely need to provide examples of ChatGPT outputs that are similar to their works, as well as evidence of OpenAI intentionally removing CMI to “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

Tremblay’s lawyers, Joseph Saveri, Bryan Clobes, and Matthew Butterick provided a statement to Ars confirming that an amended complaint is coming soon.

The original article contains 872 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!