Why would that matter, if people didn't use it as much, does it mean that it doesn't matter if there were few people?

> Why would that matter

Because its a copyright infringement case, so existence and the scale of the infringement is relevant to both whether there is liability and, if so, how much; the issue isn't that it is possible for infringement to occur.

You have to argue damages. It actually has to have cost NYT some money, and for that you need to know some extent.

We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either. They can get a hint of news and then produce their material.

OpenAI is also entitled to discovery. They can literally get every email and chat the times has and require from this point on they preserve such logs

> We don't even know if Times uses AI to get information from other sources either

which is irrelevant at this stage. Its a legal principle that both sides can fairly discover evidence. As finding out how much openAI has infringed copyright is pretty critical to the case, they need to find out.

After all, if its only once or twice, thats a couple of dollars, if its millions of times, that hundreds of millions

Who cares? That's not a legal argument and it doesn't mean anything to this case.

Oh, I was unaware that Times was inventing a novel technology with novel legal questions.

It’s very impressive they managed to do such innovation in their spare time while running a newspaper and site