Shashir Mehrotra

I would charge users a subscription for using that information.

I think that's the business model they should have.

My personal view is what should happen is I should come to ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude, and I should prove that I'm a New York Times subscriber, and then it should give me answers from the New York Times.

And the New York Times is going to have to make a choice of do I only want my content to be used for my subscribers or not.

But if I were those companies, that's what I would promise.

That's what I was responding to.

So an output, a copyright law covers it.

And I think if you actually produce something that could be mistaken for the work of another person, then you can file a claim, you can get it taken down, and then you can get, if they choose to leave it up, you can choose to negotiate a revenue share agreement or whatever you want.

want to do with that.

That output is cleared.

Input is not cleared, like you said, and the cases haven't been resolved in a particularly clear way.

The point I was making is if I were them, I wouldn't take the cost of input and distribute it across all users.

I would split the model if it really went that way.

And I would say, fine, you don't want your content there.

I will build a version of the model that is just for time subscribers and charge them.

Your particular question was, will that cost get passed along to the other users of the alarms?

I mean, that is what's happening right now.

I mean, they are paying that content.

It is being passed to us.

You know, does it matter to us?