3 ms·

It's a project that lets you piggyback off of others' ChatGPT API keys without their permission? If so, then it seems like it would violate both OpenAI's ToS as

by ziml77 4y ago

It's a project that lets you piggyback off of others' ChatGPT API keys without their permission? If so, then it seems like it would violate both OpenAI's ToS as well as the ToS for any site that is being used as a proxy. And is this a DMCA takedown? It's not actually specified in the readme update and I would have thought that the repo would have been hidden by now if it was one. Plus I'm not sure what they'd be claiming copyright on here (the API maybe?)

junon 4y ago
I mean... I know this isn't legally the same, but OpenAI has sold a repackaged version of all of our data, too.
- glitchc 4y ago
  And any code you write is a repackaged version of the compiler. Spot the difference? Should the maker of the compiler claim ownership of your binary?
  - junon 4y ago
    There is an extremely clear difference - the compiler explicitly licenses itself away from you any code it generates. Nice try though.
    - glitchc 4y ago
      That's my exact point. The compiler is explicitly assigning those roghts to the iser. It's a legal contract. It's not implicit in the design of the license. Each entity's rights to ChatGPT are exclusively described in the EULA that entity signed to ontain access.
  - antifa 4y ago
    I think the devs behind GCC are going to be really upset when they find out people have been using it to generate binaries. This is different from paintings and novels, where the authors made them for the sole purpose of being a tool. /s
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Just like all the code you write is just code you read elsewhere "repackaged". Ok sometimes you come up with what seems to be novel code, but we all know really you're just a sophisticated pattern matcher and you're just typing out the code you think is best at any given moment, based on everything you've seen and learnt from.
  - junon 4y ago
    That makes no sense. The degree of which your inputs to your coding environment can differ is many orders of magnitude less than what the LLM can generate.

by ziml77 4y ago

junon 4y ago

I mean... I know this isn't legally the same, but OpenAI has sold a repackaged version of all of our data, too.

glitchc 4y ago
And any code you write is a repackaged version of the compiler. Spot the difference? Should the maker of the compiler claim ownership of your binary?
- junon 4y ago
  There is an extremely clear difference - the compiler explicitly licenses itself away from you any code it generates. Nice try though.
  - glitchc 4y ago
    That's my exact point. The compiler is explicitly assigning those roghts to the iser. It's a legal contract. It's not implicit in the design of the license. Each entity's rights to ChatGPT are exclusively described in the EULA that entity signed to ontain access.
- antifa 4y ago
  I think the devs behind GCC are going to be really upset when they find out people have been using it to generate binaries. This is different from paintings and novels, where the authors made them for the sole purpose of being a tool. /s
IshKebab 4y ago
Just like all the code you write is just code you read elsewhere "repackaged". Ok sometimes you come up with what seems to be novel code, but we all know really you're just a sophisticated pattern matcher and you're just typing out the code you think is best at any given moment, based on everything you've seen and learnt from.
- junon 4y ago
  That makes no sense. The degree of which your inputs to your coding environment can differ is many orders of magnitude less than what the LLM can generate.