Perplexity did not react to seeks for comment.
In a statement emailed to WIRED, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson appraised Perplexity unpreferably to OpenAI. “We commend principled companies enjoy OpenAI, which comprehfinishs that integrity and creativity are vital if we are to genuineize the potential of Artificial Intelligence,” the statement says. “Perplexity is not the only AI company abusing intellectual property and it is not the only AI company that we will chase with vigor and rigor. We have made evident that we would rather woo than sue, but, for the sake of our journacatalogs, our authorrs and our company, we must dispute the satisfied kleptocracy.”
OpenAI is facing its own accusations of tradelabel dilution, though. In the New York Times v. OpenAI, the Times alleges that ChatGPT and Bing Chat will attribute made-up quotes to the Times, and accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of damaging its reputation thraw tradelabel dilution. In one example cited in the litigation, the Times alleges that Bing Chat claimed that the Times called red prospere (in moderation) a “heart-fit” food, when in fact it did not; the Times disputes that its actual alerting has debunked claims about the healthfulness of temperate drinking.
“Copying news articles to run substitutive, commercial generative AI products is unlterrible, as we made evident in our letters to Perplexity and our legal action aachievest Microsoft and OpenAI,” says NYT honestor of outside communications Charlie Stadtlander. “We commend this litigation from Dow Jones and the New York Post, which is an vital step toward ensuring that publisher satisfied is protected from this benevolent of misappropriation.”
If publishers prevail in arguing that hallucinations can viopostponecessitate tradelabel law, AI companies could face “immense difficulties” according to Matthew Sag, a professor of law and man-made intelligence at Emory University.
“It is absolutely impossible to promise that a language model will not hallucinate,” Sag says. In his watch, the way language models run by predicting words that sound right in response to prompts is always a type of hallucination—sometimes it’s fair more plausible-sounding than others.
“We only call it a hallucination if it doesn’t align up with our truth, but the process is exactly the same whether we enjoy the output or not.”
