If we accept his (and the courts') facts, ChatGPT is consistently hallucinating, in a way that would be almost certainly defamation if written by a journalist. It's unfortunate that Aus courts likely have no relevance to OpenAI because this seems like a valid legal beef.
I suspect if the legal claim is good, someone will end up replicating it in a jurisdiction that has power over the company.
It seems openAI will have to convince the society that they should avoid both copyright infringement because they're creating novel content based on an existing corpus, and liability for that content because the bias comes from the underlying corpus.
I don't see how they could do that, especially considering that someone else could easily use the same haven maliciously to produce slander or harassment.
Australia has power over the use of openAI's assets and trademarks in it's jurisdiction.
Their courts could permanently assign ownership of all openAI branding in Australia, and the right to claim all licensing fees paid in Astaralia, in lieu of financial compensation if openAI does not pay up in response to their verdict.
Something people forget ... every national court in the world can seize and re-assign ownership and rights to any US asset IN THEIR JURISDICTION, at which point paying out lawsuits starts too look cheap ... compared to having to license your intellectual property back from the claimant if you ever want to do business there again.
And in the mean time, the new owner of your trademarks could instead just sell them ... to Google, Amazon, Baidu, Tencent ... etc.
