7 ms·
They are providing a service, we pay for it, and they reinvest in improving the service. That’s the basic business practice.
by ivalm 3y ago
They are providing a service, we pay for it, and they reinvest in improving the service. That’s the basic business practice.
- dubcanada 3y agoI think you missed the memo of the comment. They were referring to the fact that everything ChatGPT is built on is other peoples work. Beyond the actual building of the model details, there is nothing that ChatGPT owns. All the content they use to train, all of the art they use to train. Everything is stolen/used without permission. Obviously there is more to it than that, because you published it on the internet. But that's a different topic.
- px43 3y agoEverything that anyone has ever built is built on the works of others. This is how we progress as a species. The entire reason why the internet is so revolutionary is that it allows for permissionless innovation.
- dubcanada 3y agoI am in no way suggesting that it is wrong. I do however feel this level of "built upon the work of others" is different.
- whitepaint 3y agoRight, so what's the problem with gpt4free then?
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThey're consuming real electricity and real time on servers that don't belong to them nor do they have permission to use.
- ChatGTP 3y agoDo you see the contradiction here ? ChatGPT-4 is built on real peoples time.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoConveniently ignoring the ‘real electricity’ part doesn’t help your case.
- vkou 3y agoThen OpenAI should allow us to do some permissionless innovation on their work. Strangly enough, it's only interested in promoting permissionless innovation when it stands to profit. It plunders the commons, and gives nothing unencumbered back.
- jstummbillig 3y agoThis litany is already getting old and it's just 2 month in. All intellectual property is inherently stolen. Just let it go.
- cormacrelf 3y agoThe reason intellectual property was invented was to encourage people to go and create new things and share them, the logic being that having a monopoly on your own work by default means you can make money from being creative and therefore people will choose to do it. The reverse is already happening, people are deciding (privately) not to publish things they have created because they rightly assume it will be stolen by an AI, monetised and used to destroy their own job. It is not merely complaining for its own sake. There is a good amount of theft and a bad amount of theft. As theft increases unchecked the amount of new output is poised to decline.
- jstummbillig 3y agoAll true. I don't see any world where it matters in the slightest. When it comes to how we deal with currently available training data nothing will change, first because of politics but also because people want the LLMs superpower more than they want to protect IP of a few individuals. And I firmly believe that no human training data that has not been produced and publishes today will play any significant role in future AI development. We are simply too slow.
- chefandy 3y agoThe topic's biggest cop-out. Intellectual property doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have limited-to-zero sympathy for corporate entities like Getty images that hoard IP, but our society's social contract says labor isn't free unless people donate it. We need to implement some sort of alternate compensation system before entirely disregarding IP so we don't pull the rug out from under perfectly honest independent creatives with kids and mortgages and medical bills plying their craft in an established system. Until then, taking the fruits of creative labor without permission is theft that is much more consequential and much less morally defensible than what you describe. I'll bet if someone outside of our IP jurisdiction figured out a way to reliably and thoroughly reverse engineer the most complex commercial software from binaries so people could spit out a working, fully-customized copy of a commercial application from a prompt, and the entirety of the software development market would soon collapse, the tenor of this conversation would be very different. Maybe the people with the very ethically defensible stance that private property is theft would be totally fine with OpenAI knocking down your home to build their new headquarters without compensating you? Imagine the progress! (hint: they probably wouldn't be ok with it) None of this stuff exists in a vacuum. None of it.
- smoldesu 3y agoIf we enforced intellectual property rights that harshly, nothing more complex than a 6502 would have ever been made.
- dubcanada 3y agoI personally don't think IP has a place in modern society. But I was mostly replying to the authors comment. My concerns mostly lie with the fact it's owned largely by $MSFT rather than a more "open source" contributing to society entity. But again that's a much different topic.
- devmor 3y agoI'd say IP is more important in modern society than at any time in history. It shouldn't have a place, but so long as people require the ownership of their own concepts to gain food and shelter, it has to.
- Kiro 3y agoImagine considering your random posts on reddit "work" and thinking people are stealing it when they train their models on your internet drivel.
- salad-tycoon 3y agoAll the misguided comments of my younger years coming to haunt me? Nightmare. Luckily I deleted my live journal many moons ago.
- msla 3y agoSo it's valueless when the original author wants it to have value and valuable when OpenAI wants it to have value? I am all for training AIs, but at least exhibit some self-consistency in your arguments!
- squeaky-clean 3y agoA penny is close to valueless. A trillion pennies is a lot of value.
- glitchc 3y agoThis is an incorrect and unfair statement that would not pass the test in any court of law. ChatGPT uniquely orders information in a way that gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace. While the source information is public, the ordering of it is proprietary and a trade secret. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum to "everything is made of atoms and no one ones atoms, ergo no one owns anything."
- dcow 3y agoI'm sorry but you can't honestly use stolen without permission here. If you publish something and someone else acquires it legally (because you published it for free or because they paid for or otherwise obtained a license to it) then you don't get to control how the work is used after the fact. You only control the terms of them receiving a copy. You can't say "I didn't want my work used for AI training data when I published it so it's all stolen as far as I'm concerned". It just doesn't work that way. Now that doesn't mean you can't license your work for exclusive use by humans and explicitly forbid AI training data in the license applied to your work, but you'd have to do that when you publish it, not retroactively.