3 ms·
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
by 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 agoAre OpenAI saying they have adhered to the terms of service of all the content they have used?
- dragonwriter 4y agoContent 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 agoShareGPT 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 agoTerms 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.