This is the best summary I could come up with:

The result, experts speculate, could be devastating to OpenAI, including the destruction of ChatGPT's dataset and fines up to $150,000 per infringing piece of content.

If the Times were to follow through and sue ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, NPR suggested that the lawsuit could become "the most high-profile" legal battle yet over copyright protection since ChatGPT's explosively popular launch.

This speculation comes a month after Sarah Silverman joined other popular authors suing OpenAI over similar concerns, seeking to protect the copyright of their books.

As of this month, the Times' TOS prohibits any use of its content for "the development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system."

In the memo, the Times' chief product officer, Alex Hardiman, and deputy managing editor Sam Dolnick said a top "fear" for the company was "protecting our rights" against generative AI tools.

the memo asked, echoing a question being raised in newsrooms that are beginning to weigh the benefits and risks of generative AI.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Isn't that... weird? Like someone would have reinvented the wheel (literally), to end up being much better than the "original" wheel... and pissing off mechanics worldwide because that'd make em lose their jobs because of some random, nonsensical reason. Idk, its like folks forgot that the AI can be EASILY manipulated. But nooooooooo "whining is easier, lads! Let's whine instead of making things better!".... heh. Humanity is so fucked.

Kill the earth, and start over.

Start over with what? The internet is now polluted with AI gibberish.

If ChatGPT gets erased and rescanned with new stuff, I can see different "flavors" popping up to replace it. For example: Conservative GPT, no content related to trans, evolution, or climate change. Vetted Wikipedia entries only.