3 ms·

> the team points to the OpenAI GPT-3.5 terms of use, which state that the model may not be used to develop AI models that compete with OpenAI. and yet i bet o

by zem 4y ago

> the team points to the OpenAI GPT-3.5 terms of use, which state that the model may not be used to develop AI models that compete with OpenAI. and yet i bet openai was trained on data that they did not bother negotiating and honouring "terms of use" for. what's the difference?

iudqnolq 4y ago
Unfortunately under US law that's a significant difference. Companies can take away a dizzying variety of your rights if they simply say so. It's how they won most of the anti-scraping cases.
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  Yes but the point is GPT-3/4 must include at least one website that prohibited scraping, thus OpenAI should not be using their GPT models, by their own logic.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    But OpenAI never clicked that "I agree" checkbox, whereas you entered into an agreement with them.
    - Zuiii 4y ago
      Neither have most of the people who used this data to train their models[1]. "I agree" only applies to those who pressed that button. AI output is strictly not copyrightable under current law, so standard tricks to limit what people can do generally don't work [2]. [1]: https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
nurettin 4y ago
If we can scrape linkedin and amazon, why can't they scrape our online content?
- twelve40 4y ago
  That's a great question, I'm wondering that myself. So I know from the legal standpoint anti-scraping has been a messy debate, but what is different this time. Amazon and Linkedin won't die if their analytics leaks, in fact in Linkedin's case all the data was volunteered by the users. These users won't up and leave to another place that scraped Linkedin. I'm not sure if I agree with the lawsuit outcomes, but it didn't look like an existential threat to Linkedin or Amazon. Now, in case of scraping _all_ of public useful information. Let's take Stackoverflow as an example of a community-produced content. It gets 90% of its traffic from Google, people show up, read, ask and answer questions (click on jobs and ads to keep SO servers running). If a scraper comes by that inhales all of that data, and regurgitates it under Microsoft's name, giving no credit, no references and absolutely nothing back to the authors of those questions and answers. What is the reason for SO to exist anymore? What is the motivation for people to keep answering and refining the questions? 90% of Stackoverflow will evaporate. The way it's currently set up it's an existential threat to any meaningful content on the web. Maybe there have been some legal precedents to repeal anti-scraping, but this is a very big problem now.

by zem 4y ago

iudqnolq 4y ago

Unfortunately under US law that's a significant difference. Companies can take away a dizzying variety of your rights if they simply say so. It's how they won most of the anti-scraping cases.

meghan_rain 4y ago
Yes but the point is GPT-3/4 must include at least one website that prohibited scraping, thus OpenAI should not be using their GPT models, by their own logic.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  But OpenAI never clicked that "I agree" checkbox, whereas you entered into an agreement with them.
  - Zuiii 4y ago
    Neither have most of the people who used this data to train their models[1]. "I agree" only applies to those who pressed that button. AI output is strictly not copyrightable under current law, so standard tricks to limit what people can do generally don't work [2]. [1]: https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca https://github.com/pointnetwork/point-alpaca [2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

nurettin 4y ago

If we can scrape linkedin and amazon, why can't they scrape our online content?

twelve40 4y ago
That's a great question, I'm wondering that myself. So I know from the legal standpoint anti-scraping has been a messy debate, but what is different this time. Amazon and Linkedin won't die if their analytics leaks, in fact in Linkedin's case all the data was volunteered by the users. These users won't up and leave to another place that scraped Linkedin. I'm not sure if I agree with the lawsuit outcomes, but it didn't look like an existential threat to Linkedin or Amazon. Now, in case of scraping _all_ of public useful information. Let's take Stackoverflow as an example of a community-produced content. It gets 90% of its traffic from Google, people show up, read, ask and answer questions (click on jobs and ads to keep SO servers running). If a scraper comes by that inhales all of that data, and regurgitates it under Microsoft's name, giving no credit, no references and absolutely nothing back to the authors of those questions and answers. What is the reason for SO to exist anymore? What is the motivation for people to keep answering and refining the questions? 90% of Stackoverflow will evaporate. The way it's currently set up it's an existential threat to any meaningful content on the web. Maybe there have been some legal precedents to repeal anti-scraping, but this is a very big problem now.