8 ms·

> Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. Th

by cruano 4y ago

> Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is particularly noteworthy considering OpenAI was recently valued at US$29 billion, more than double its value in 2021. Wait until they find out how much Google is valued at

catchnear4321 4y ago
It’s amazing how easily the worship of the almighty dollar can cheapen an article. > Finally, we turn to the real crime, the crime involving money. I thought we were talking about privacy.
- canadianfella 4y ago
  [dead]
- boringg 4y ago
  Dollar is how we value everything almost. So its easier to talk in dollars when trying to determine scale/magnitude. That said that line sounds like crap.
- isoprophlex 4y ago
  God no! Will someone please think of those poor dollars!
- toss1 4y ago
  Considering that surveillance capitalism is stealing privacy for money, the two are not far apart. And in this case, the "AI" companies are literally trespassing on the property of almost everyone on the internet, using it without permission, in order to cash in. Freeloading on the work of the entire agora, privatizing the profits, and letting the costs of destroyed privacy fall on anyone but them. IOW, standard exploitative capitalism. No different from stealing the minerals from under someone's land without compensation, and leaving them to cleanup the mess. In this case, hijacking everyone's published work without permission, taking the profits, and ignoring any privacy damage for the people whose work was critical to the enterprise. It would not have been hard to log the inputs and offer/issue fractional shares to everyone whose work was used, and the right to refuse. But, like costs of remediating mining, they'd rather not bother with that unprofitable part. It's kind of important to notice when you are being abused and care about it.
  - mark_l_watson 4y ago
    I agree. A little off topic, but I would like to plug two very useful privacy books: https://www.carissaveliz.com/books https://www.carissaveliz.com/books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita...
conradkay 4y ago
I guess you're somewhat consenting by not putting a noindex tag in your site?
- verdverm 4y ago
  Most people want their content to be discovered and consumed by others.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Why do you need mark anything by not putting a noindex tag but your photos automatically have copyright protection
- bombolo 4y ago
  So chatgpt returns the link to the original site? If not, it's not "indexing".
gjsman-1000 4y ago
We've been over the stupid "link tax" idea. If you want to kill the possibility of any search engine competition springing up, it's a great idea. The Conversation is probably still salty they didn't get their additional revenue stream, because getting Google to put you on first page and pay you to be there would be just too good a deal.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Where is The Conversation complaining about not getting paid to link to them?
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    I was referring to the following: > Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is an argument that "proves too much." See if I switch terms with something more familiar: > Finally, Google did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is a classic "link tax" argument. The Conversation may also not have noticed that the US has repeatedly declared web scraping legal, as lately as last year. https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Okay but that’s not the argument they’re making? OpenAI does something very different with the data than Google does. Hell, Google does something different with the data than Google does — that argument reads very differently if you’re talking about links vs. the summary boxes at the top of some searches. I’ve talked about the HiQ case on here before. I wish we were able to come up with something more nuanced (probably not in the courts, though). Scraping people’s LinkedIns to snitch to their employers when they’re job hunting is obviously a thing we should limit as much as possible.
      - 4y ago
CWuestefeld 4y ago
Is this any different than the copyright lawsuits against image-generating AIs? Just as when a human views many pictures and is influenced by them in creating their own work, so does, e.g., Stable Diffusion take ideas and influence from existing works to generate new works. And except in very extreme cases, nobody claims that being influenced by someone is a copyright violation. Similarly, I can sit around reading articles on the web all day, then go to the local pub and pontificate, and nobody is going to claim that I should be paying those website I read just because I plan to talk about them later. Same way, these LLM AIs are "learning" from what they read, and then spouting off based on that later. I can't see any difference. Indeed, the verisimilitude is heightened by the fact that these AIs often don't really know what they're talking about, and just make crap up - just like our hypothetical human, pontificating in the pub.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead and confused statutory facts with moral claims. In the wholeness of time, at least the adults now know that computer security is different and understand how the CFAA and related statutes work in practice. We also understand how laws that pre-dated computers interact with our new technological realities. In computer security, there's usually no need for analogy at this point. At least not once you find yourself in a courtroom. Models aren't human brains. The law will think of them differently and treat them differently. I'm not sure how these lawsuits and class actions will shake out, to be honest, but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub.
  - ekidd 4y ago
    > but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."
anileated 4y ago
Google, with all its vices, is not the one ripping everyone off by passing content it scrapes around the web as its own without links/attribution. It’s designed to send traffic your way, preserving your ability to interact with your readers. OTOH Microsoft, through OpenAI, is performing the ultimate bait-and-switch, and somehow it seems as if the community is mostly praising them for that.
- waynesonfire 4y ago
  Google is certainly ripping everyone off, did you miss the news on the second antitrust case that DOJ has filed against Google?
  - anileated 4y ago
    > Google is certainly ripping everyone off Care to explain how does what Google is doing compare to what OpenAI/Microsoft is doing? In context of ethics and legal uses of intellectual property, please. Otherwise I can’t see how this bears any relevance to my point. > the second antitrust case that DOJ has filed against Google There was an antitrust case against Microsoft too back in 2001, remember what came out of it?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > There was an antitrust case against Microsoft too back in 2001, remember what came out of it? They were found guilty as all hell by the EU, and were apparently nearly broken up. Pity they got to keep as one entity. :( Their next go around by the EU would hopefully permanently solve them, though that's more wishful thinking than anything. ;)
      - anileated 4y ago
        I only meant the US case, and somehow it doesn’t strike me as an example of justice having been done. Yes, hopefully EU/US are looking into what MS/OAI is doing now and preparing to sue again, but yes I also don’t have much confidence in legal systems moving at the warranted speed. In any case, it’s difficult to see how it’s even relevant. Google: monopolizes search. MS/OAI: straight up ignores copyright. You can see how Google may be benefitting from being the largest search provider and others (Kagi, etc.) have difficult time competing, but my viewpoint is that surprisingly enough now we have a new villain in town compared to whom even Google seems to be playing fairly.

by cruano 4y ago

catchnear4321 4y ago

It’s amazing how easily the worship of the almighty dollar can cheapen an article. > Finally, we turn to the real crime, the crime involving money. I thought we were talking about privacy.

canadianfella 4y ago
[dead]
boringg 4y ago
Dollar is how we value everything almost. So its easier to talk in dollars when trying to determine scale/magnitude. That said that line sounds like crap.
isoprophlex 4y ago
God no! Will someone please think of those poor dollars!
toss1 4y ago
Considering that surveillance capitalism is stealing privacy for money, the two are not far apart. And in this case, the "AI" companies are literally trespassing on the property of almost everyone on the internet, using it without permission, in order to cash in. Freeloading on the work of the entire agora, privatizing the profits, and letting the costs of destroyed privacy fall on anyone but them. IOW, standard exploitative capitalism. No different from stealing the minerals from under someone's land without compensation, and leaving them to cleanup the mess. In this case, hijacking everyone's published work without permission, taking the profits, and ignoring any privacy damage for the people whose work was critical to the enterprise. It would not have been hard to log the inputs and offer/issue fractional shares to everyone whose work was used, and the right to refuse. But, like costs of remediating mining, they'd rather not bother with that unprofitable part. It's kind of important to notice when you are being abused and care about it.
- mark_l_watson 4y ago
  I agree. A little off topic, but I would like to plug two very useful privacy books: https://www.carissaveliz.com/books https://www.carissaveliz.com/books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita...

conradkay 4y ago

I guess you're somewhat consenting by not putting a noindex tag in your site?

verdverm 4y ago
Most people want their content to be discovered and consumed by others.
ipaddr 4y ago
Why do you need mark anything by not putting a noindex tag but your photos automatically have copyright protection
bombolo 4y ago
So chatgpt returns the link to the original site? If not, it's not "indexing".

gjsman-1000 4y ago

We've been over the stupid "link tax" idea. If you want to kill the possibility of any search engine competition springing up, it's a great idea. The Conversation is probably still salty they didn't get their additional revenue stream, because getting Google to put you on first page and pay you to be there would be just too good a deal.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Where is The Conversation complaining about not getting paid to link to them?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I was referring to the following: > Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is an argument that "proves too much." See if I switch terms with something more familiar: > Finally, Google did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is a classic "link tax" argument. The Conversation may also not have noticed that the US has repeatedly declared web scraping legal, as lately as last year. https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Okay but that’s not the argument they’re making? OpenAI does something very different with the data than Google does. Hell, Google does something different with the data than Google does — that argument reads very differently if you’re talking about links vs. the summary boxes at the top of some searches. I’ve talked about the HiQ case on here before. I wish we were able to come up with something more nuanced (probably not in the courts, though). Scraping people’s LinkedIns to snitch to their employers when they’re job hunting is obviously a thing we should limit as much as possible.
    - 4y ago

CWuestefeld 4y ago

Is this any different than the copyright lawsuits against image-generating AIs? Just as when a human views many pictures and is influenced by them in creating their own work, so does, e.g., Stable Diffusion take ideas and influence from existing works to generate new works. And except in very extreme cases, nobody claims that being influenced by someone is a copyright violation. Similarly, I can sit around reading articles on the web all day, then go to the local pub and pontificate, and nobody is going to claim that I should be paying those website I read just because I plan to talk about them later. Same way, these LLM AIs are "learning" from what they read, and then spouting off based on that later. I can't see any difference. Indeed, the verisimilitude is heightened by the fact that these AIs often don't really know what they're talking about, and just make crap up - just like our hypothetical human, pontificating in the pub.

thwayunion 4y ago
The analogy to humans is probably a trap. In the early days of software security there were a lot of analogies to physical penetration. These analogies mislead and confused statutory facts with moral claims. In the wholeness of time, at least the adults now know that computer security is different and understand how the CFAA and related statutes work in practice. We also understand how laws that pre-dated computers interact with our new technological realities. In computer security, there's usually no need for analogy at this point. At least not once you find yourself in a courtroom. Models aren't human brains. The law will think of them differently and treat them differently. I'm not sure how these lawsuits and class actions will shake out, to be honest, but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub.
- ekidd 4y ago
  > but I know that the law will not think of LLMs the same way it thinks about a human at the pub. Perhaps I am old and cynical, but I fear that we'll establish harsh new restrictions on LLMs—and then gradually apply those restrictions to humans over time. "I am sorry, you have read too much science fiction, and it has indirectly inspired your own writing. You owe mandatory royalties to a trade association." "Your paintings are clearly pointillist. You are infringing on the rights of the Monet estate."

anileated 4y ago

Google, with all its vices, is not the one ripping everyone off by passing content it scrapes around the web as its own without links/attribution. It’s designed to send traffic your way, preserving your ability to interact with your readers. OTOH Microsoft, through OpenAI, is performing the ultimate bait-and-switch, and somehow it seems as if the community is mostly praising them for that.

waynesonfire 4y ago
Google is certainly ripping everyone off, did you miss the news on the second antitrust case that DOJ has filed against Google?
- anileated 4y ago
  > Google is certainly ripping everyone off Care to explain how does what Google is doing compare to what OpenAI/Microsoft is doing? In context of ethics and legal uses of intellectual property, please. Otherwise I can’t see how this bears any relevance to my point. > the second antitrust case that DOJ has filed against Google There was an antitrust case against Microsoft too back in 2001, remember what came out of it?
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > There was an antitrust case against Microsoft too back in 2001, remember what came out of it? They were found guilty as all hell by the EU, and were apparently nearly broken up. Pity they got to keep as one entity. :( Their next go around by the EU would hopefully permanently solve them, though that's more wishful thinking than anything. ;)
    - anileated 4y ago
      I only meant the US case, and somehow it doesn’t strike me as an example of justice having been done. Yes, hopefully EU/US are looking into what MS/OAI is doing now and preparing to sue again, but yes I also don’t have much confidence in legal systems moving at the warranted speed. In any case, it’s difficult to see how it’s even relevant. Google: monopolizes search. MS/OAI: straight up ignores copyright. You can see how Google may be benefitting from being the largest search provider and others (Kagi, etc.) have difficult time competing, but my viewpoint is that surprisingly enough now we have a new villain in town compared to whom even Google seems to be playing fairly.