“The New York Times versus OpenAI lawsuit made that abundantly clear, with a hundred examples like this one, in which ChatGPT reconstructed entire stretches of text (red) from brief prompts2 (black text in top line):”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
The NYT v. OpenAI lawsuit showed about a hundred examples of ChatGPT reconstructing entire stretches of text from brief prompts.
Assessment: Mixed Evidence as of
Where and when Gary Marcus wrote it
Marcus on AI, Deconstructing Geoffrey Hinton’s weakest argument, paragraph 19.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment marcus-deconstructing-geoffrey-hintons-weakest-2cf784-a1
We recorded 10 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-29. The source may have been edited after 2024-02-05. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
From the speaker
- The New York Times versus OpenAI lawsuit
- a hundred examples
- ChatGPT reconstructed entire stretches of text
- from brief prompts
Our interpretation
- Assess what the December 2023 complaint and its exhibits presented, without treating allegations as judicial findings.
- Read 'entire stretches' as substantial consecutive passages, not necessarily complete articles.
- Read 'brief prompts' as short inputs; do not assume that several paragraphs qualify simply because the original article was longer.
- Distinguish the ChatGPT application from GPT-4 accessed through developer tools, while acknowledging that Marcus may have used ChatGPT loosely.
Counts as supported if: The filed materials present approximately 100 examples of substantial matching article passages generated by ChatGPT from short prompts.
Counts as contradicted if: The materials materially differ in example count, reproduced text, product used, or prompt length.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Mixed
Part of the claim holds and part does not, and the record says which part is which.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
The lawsuit did present 100 examples of GPT-4 producing substantial passages matching Times articles. The description is less precise about the interface and prompts. OpenAI's filing identifies Exhibit J as API outputs, and the exhibit includes both short lead-ins and prompts containing several paragraphs. The count and reproduced passages hold; the unqualified description of 100 ChatGPT examples from brief prompts does not fully hold.
Limitations
- Both filings are party submissions, not judicial findings about experimental validity.
- If ChatGPT is read loosely to include GPT-4 API use, the product distinction disappears.
- The evidence establishes submitted examples, not their frequency in ordinary use.
Evidence (2 items)
Supports the claim: The New York Times Company; exhibit filed in the Southern District of New York,
a short snippet
Why it matters here: Exhibit J identifies 100 GPT-4 examples and presents matching article passages. Its actual prompts vary: Examples 1 and 2 contain several paragraphs, while Examples 3 and 100 have short lead-ins, so the exhibit does not uniformly substantiate 'brief prompts.'
- Publisher
- The New York Times Company; exhibit filed in the Southern District of New York
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Goes against the claim: OpenAI defendants; filing in the Southern District of New York,
complete 100 Times articles.
Why it matters here: This later filing describes the December exhibit as API-generated GPT-4 outputs and separately categorizes ChatGPT outputs. It contradicts the precise product attribution, although it is a defendant's submission rather than a court finding.
- Publisher
- OpenAI defendants; filing in the Southern District of New York
- Kind of source
- Regulatory filing
- Describes events of
- Public from
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Marcus on AI, Deconstructing Geoffrey Hinton’s weakest argument
The New York Times versus OpenAI lawsuit made that abundantly clear, with a hundred examples like this one, in which ChatGPT reconstructed entire stretches of text (red) from brief prompts2 (black text in top line):
- Where
- paragraph 19
- Published
- 2024-02-05
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment marcus-deconstructing-geoffrey-hintons-weakest-2cf784-a1: Current. Outcome: Mixed. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.
About assessment marcus-deconstructing-geoffrey-hintons-weakest-2cf784-a1.