3 ms·

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" as the legal cliche goes. OpenAI cannot on the one hand claim that google did something wrong if they used

"What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" as the legal cliche goes. OpenAI cannot on the one hand claim that google did something wrong if they used their outputs as part of the bard training while simultaneously on the other hand claiming they themselves are free to use everyone on the internets content to train their model. Either they believe that training should respect copyright (in which case they could not do what they do) or they believe that training is fair use (in which case they cannot possibly object to Google doing the same as them).

sebzim4500 4y ago
No one is alleging copyright violations. The claim is that they violated OpenAI's terms of service. We don't know whether Google ever even agreed to those terms of service in the first place.
- seanhunter 4y ago
  Are OpenAI saying they have adhered to the terms of service of all the content they have used?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Content is not subject to terms of service. Services are subject to terms of service. (If content is received through a service, the terms of service may govern use of it, but that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route.)
    - danShumway 4y ago
      ShareGPT isn't part of that service though. Yes, it would be a TOS violation if Google directly used ChatGPT to generate transcripts -- but not even the original Twitter thread is claiming that. The only claim being made against Google here is that they used ChatGPT content. I can't find any sources claiming that Google made use of an OpenAI service. So the distinction is correct, but doesn't seem particularly valuable in this context -- using data from ShareGPT is not a TOS violation.
    - deckard1 4y ago
      Terms of Service, Terms and Conditions, and Terms of Use are all the same thing. There is no legal difference between them. > that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route. It's neither. It's a feature of contract law.
az226 4y ago
[flagged]
- cornholio 4y ago
  That's nonsensical. An AI is either transformative or it's not, it's an intrinsic quality that has nothing to do with the training data or the "product" type. If OpenAI is sufficiently transformative to claim fair use (which I don't believe for a second, alas), then any other AI built on similar fundamentals has the same claims and can crunch any data their creators see fit, including the output of other AIs.

sebzim4500 4y ago

No one is alleging copyright violations. The claim is that they violated OpenAI's terms of service. We don't know whether Google ever even agreed to those terms of service in the first place.

seanhunter 4y ago
Are OpenAI saying they have adhered to the terms of service of all the content they have used?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Content is not subject to terms of service. Services are subject to terms of service. (If content is received through a service, the terms of service may govern use of it, but that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route.)
  - danShumway 4y ago
    ShareGPT isn't part of that service though. Yes, it would be a TOS violation if Google directly used ChatGPT to generate transcripts -- but not even the original Twitter thread is claiming that. The only claim being made against Google here is that they used ChatGPT content. I can't find any sources claiming that Google made use of an OpenAI service. So the distinction is correct, but doesn't seem particularly valuable in this context -- using data from ShareGPT is not a TOS violation.
  - deckard1 4y ago
    Terms of Service, Terms and Conditions, and Terms of Use are all the same thing. There is no legal difference between them. > that’s not a feature of the content, but the acquisition route. It's neither. It's a feature of contract law.

az226 4y ago

[flagged]

cornholio 4y ago
That's nonsensical. An AI is either transformative or it's not, it's an intrinsic quality that has nothing to do with the training data or the "product" type. If OpenAI is sufficiently transformative to claim fair use (which I don't believe for a second, alas), then any other AI built on similar fundamentals has the same claims and can crunch any data their creators see fit, including the output of other AIs.