11 ms·

There's a reason why you can't do this commercially and why Google isn't doing it already... Pulling the meat of the content from a site like StackOverflow ends

There's a reason why you can't do this commercially and why Google isn't doing it already... Pulling the meat of the content from a site like StackOverflow ends up as a copyright/anti-trust violation. I'm fairly certain that this was the reason why Google had to tamp down it's rich results that were made mostly from Wikipedia entries. More recently it was shopping... "Google argues that ‘rich results’ in Search provide more direct experience in antitrust suit response": https://9to5google.com/2020/12/17/google-search-antitrust-response/ https://9to5google.com/2020/12/17/google-search-antitrust-re... "Google loses appeal, faces €2.4 billion shopping antitrust fine": https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/11/google-loses-appeal-of-eus-shopping-antitrust-lawsuit/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/11/google-loses-appeal-...

isthispermanent 4y ago
Thinking more on this... I don't think any of these sites will live if they get big enough. And if enough of them pop up it'll draw tons of attention from content sites. If you want to show that data you'll end up having to work out a license from StackOverflow. Possible, but far more difficult than the current ease of plug-and-play GPT drop-in. Do we really think Google hasn't thought of this exact thing already?
- jchw 4y ago
  Stack Overflow user content is licensed under the Creative Commons license, so it's possible you actually could satisfy the license terms. That said, IANAL, and I have no idea if it's possible to fulfill the SA clause without distributing the model, or something like that.
- stevewatson301 4y ago
  Google is already working on LaMDA and Imagen for conversational search experiences, which is why these projects also wax poetic about "AI safety" -- you don't want to synthesize a politically incorrect or socially unacceptable response to a question asked. Apart from the copyright issues that parent mentions, there's also the issue of LLM spewing BS confidently, which is why Google has been hesitant to roll it out as their default.
  - isthispermanent 4y ago
    Agreed. This post sums up the other issues outside of copyright that these types of services are certain to run into… 1. DeepMind 2. Infrastructure 3. Trust 4. Freshness 5. Habit Breaking https://www.maxinomics.com/blog/fade-the-chatgpt-hype https://www.maxinomics.com/blog/fade-the-chatgpt-hype
worldsavior 4y ago
But it's siting the sources, how is it a copyright violation?
- moralestapia 4y ago
  It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.
  - isthispermanent 4y ago
    It's quite likely a fair use violation... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Particularly 3 & 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
  - worldsavior 4y ago
    Tho now I think about it more, it might be damaging the site money of income (ads, etc). But it's still not a copyright violation.
    - isthispermanent 4y ago
      "it might be damaging the site money of income" Which is one of the key factors of determining Fair Use and Fair Use falls under copyright.
      - moralestapia 4y ago
        It could also be bringing new money to those sites by referring users to them. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The issue with Google had more to do with antitrust behavior than with copyright infringement.
moralestapia 4y ago
You're confused, copyright != antitrust violations. Both sources you provide have zero mentions of the word 'copyright' in them. Those lawsuits have to do with Google's dominating the search market and using that to their advantage in ways that are allegedly unfair. Copyright law actually allows a service like Google to exist in the first place.
- drusepth 4y ago
  According to OP's model, for anyone wondering: >Copyright infringement and antitrust violations are two distinct types of improper use. Plagiarism is an ethical violation that occurs when someone attempts to pass off someone else's work or ideas as their own, without properly giving credit to the original source. It is not against the law, but can have serious consequences such as failing grades, termination, and difficulty finding new employment. On the other hand, copyright infringement occurs when a party takes an action that implicates one or more of the rights listed above without authorization from the copyright owner or an applicable exception or limitation in the copyright law, such as fair use. The most common antitrust violations fall into two categories: agreements to restrain competition and efforts to acquire a monopoly.
- stevewatson301 4y ago
  The possibility that a LLM could trigger a copyright violation strengthens the narrative that Google is harming smaller business, and thus can easily be used as a data point in an antitrust lawsuit.
- isthispermanent 4y ago
  Yes, thank you. I’m neither confused nor disagree with you. I simply cited the most recent, easily found examples where Google ran afoul for rich results. There are plenty of examples out there, as mentioned the ones prior to the recent shopping ones. Feel free to dig.
freediver 4y ago
The reason is likely simpler: - It is expensive (~0.5c per generated answer) - It is (currently) slow (2-3 seconds to result) - It is hard to place ads inside direct answers (probably the most important)
- iso1631 4y ago
  If it's a good result I'm sure there are many people that would pay 1c per search. I've made 16 searches today, far less for stuff I didn't find with ddg. If I was after something specific I could charge my account with $5 and search away.
  - freediver 4y ago
    I agree, but that is not how Google search (currently) operates.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      Great opportunity for someone to disrupt Costs are only going to come down.
- dwaltrip 4y ago
  Those problems don't seem insurmountable, especially if it is 10-100x better than Google.
lossolo 4y ago
What's funny is that most of this ground breaking LLMs you see now are based on Google published research about transformers, and they have better performing models in house than anything publicly available on the market.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> Pulling the meat of the content from a site like StackOverflow ends up as a copyright/anti-trust violation. Then how did ChatGPT do it?
- charlesju 4y ago
  Non profit right?
notpushkin 4y ago
Note that pulling the meat of the content from StackOverflow isn't copyright violation though, as long as you follow the license (which is Creative Commons something-something but probably fine for this particular application).

isthispermanent 4y ago

Thinking more on this... I don't think any of these sites will live if they get big enough. And if enough of them pop up it'll draw tons of attention from content sites. If you want to show that data you'll end up having to work out a license from StackOverflow. Possible, but far more difficult than the current ease of plug-and-play GPT drop-in. Do we really think Google hasn't thought of this exact thing already?

jchw 4y ago
Stack Overflow user content is licensed under the Creative Commons license, so it's possible you actually could satisfy the license terms. That said, IANAL, and I have no idea if it's possible to fulfill the SA clause without distributing the model, or something like that.
stevewatson301 4y ago
Google is already working on LaMDA and Imagen for conversational search experiences, which is why these projects also wax poetic about "AI safety" -- you don't want to synthesize a politically incorrect or socially unacceptable response to a question asked. Apart from the copyright issues that parent mentions, there's also the issue of LLM spewing BS confidently, which is why Google has been hesitant to roll it out as their default.
- isthispermanent 4y ago
  Agreed. This post sums up the other issues outside of copyright that these types of services are certain to run into… 1. DeepMind 2. Infrastructure 3. Trust 4. Freshness 5. Habit Breaking https://www.maxinomics.com/blog/fade-the-chatgpt-hype https://www.maxinomics.com/blog/fade-the-chatgpt-hype

worldsavior 4y ago

But it's siting the sources, how is it a copyright violation?

moralestapia 4y ago
It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.
- isthispermanent 4y ago
  It's quite likely a fair use violation... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Particularly 3 & 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
- worldsavior 4y ago
  Tho now I think about it more, it might be damaging the site money of income (ads, etc). But it's still not a copyright violation.
  - isthispermanent 4y ago
    "it might be damaging the site money of income" Which is one of the key factors of determining Fair Use and Fair Use falls under copyright.
    - moralestapia 4y ago
      It could also be bringing new money to those sites by referring users to them. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The issue with Google had more to do with antitrust behavior than with copyright infringement.

moralestapia 4y ago

You're confused, copyright != antitrust violations. Both sources you provide have zero mentions of the word 'copyright' in them. Those lawsuits have to do with Google's dominating the search market and using that to their advantage in ways that are allegedly unfair. Copyright law actually allows a service like Google to exist in the first place.

drusepth 4y ago
According to OP's model, for anyone wondering: >Copyright infringement and antitrust violations are two distinct types of improper use. Plagiarism is an ethical violation that occurs when someone attempts to pass off someone else's work or ideas as their own, without properly giving credit to the original source. It is not against the law, but can have serious consequences such as failing grades, termination, and difficulty finding new employment. On the other hand, copyright infringement occurs when a party takes an action that implicates one or more of the rights listed above without authorization from the copyright owner or an applicable exception or limitation in the copyright law, such as fair use. The most common antitrust violations fall into two categories: agreements to restrain competition and efforts to acquire a monopoly.
stevewatson301 4y ago
The possibility that a LLM could trigger a copyright violation strengthens the narrative that Google is harming smaller business, and thus can easily be used as a data point in an antitrust lawsuit.
isthispermanent 4y ago
Yes, thank you. I’m neither confused nor disagree with you. I simply cited the most recent, easily found examples where Google ran afoul for rich results. There are plenty of examples out there, as mentioned the ones prior to the recent shopping ones. Feel free to dig.

freediver 4y ago

The reason is likely simpler: - It is expensive (~0.5c per generated answer) - It is (currently) slow (2-3 seconds to result) - It is hard to place ads inside direct answers (probably the most important)

iso1631 4y ago
If it's a good result I'm sure there are many people that would pay 1c per search. I've made 16 searches today, far less for stuff I didn't find with ddg. If I was after something specific I could charge my account with $5 and search away.
- freediver 4y ago
  I agree, but that is not how Google search (currently) operates.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Great opportunity for someone to disrupt Costs are only going to come down.
dwaltrip 4y ago
Those problems don't seem insurmountable, especially if it is 10-100x better than Google.

lossolo 4y ago

What's funny is that most of this ground breaking LLMs you see now are based on Google published research about transformers, and they have better performing models in house than anything publicly available on the market.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago

> Pulling the meat of the content from a site like StackOverflow ends up as a copyright/anti-trust violation. Then how did ChatGPT do it?

charlesju 4y ago
Non profit right?

notpushkin 4y ago

Note that pulling the meat of the content from StackOverflow isn't copyright violation though, as long as you follow the license (which is Creative Commons something-something but probably fine for this particular application).