5 ms·

The author of the article doesn't know that OpenAI's language model is called GPT-4, that's with s dash. This in turn makes GPT4free seem even closer related to

The author of the article doesn't know that OpenAI's language model is called GPT-4, that's with s dash. This in turn makes GPT4free seem even closer related to GPT-4, which it isn't. GPT4free existed way before GPT-4 was announced as far as I know. On top of that, GPT is not OpenAI trademark.

Deukhoofd 3y ago
> On top of that, GPT is not OpenAI trademark. Not yet, but they're definitely working towards it. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_...
- kvetching 3y ago
  they've really done a 360 on openness
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    180*
    - ben_w 3y ago
      No, no, I'd say 360 is correct in this case. Possibly not deliberately correct, but it is IMO correct. Trademarks etc. are unavoidable, and also used by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Python Software Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, etc.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - RobotToaster 3y ago
      They're good at moonwalking
  - helsinkiandrew 3y ago
    > they've really done a 360 on openness I don't think that's fair - I'd guess many (probably most) large, fully open source projects have trademarked their name/project to stop people using it for similar projects, scamming, and confusing users. GPT may have been a step too far for OpenAI but even the FSF agree on Trademarks: https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf
  - imdsm 3y ago
    I mean, they haven't. What does open mean to you? It isn't OpensourceAI. OpenAI have made ChatGPT freely available. They have opened up use of their models to regular people and developers. They have the most powerful LLM and it's open to use by anyone. In addition, they work in the open. They accept the criticisms and continue to work in the open. Also, FWIW, if they did a 360º on openness, they'd be going in the same direction. I think you mean 180º.
capableweb 3y ago
> GPT4free existed way before GPT-4 was announced as far as I know Based on what? First commit seems to have been March 29th (https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/commit/fc995b874199ce985a830bfc17a97759fa7152dc https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/commit/fc995b874199ce985a...), with the express purpose of providing GPT-4 / GPT-3.5 access for free: > # openai-gpt4 > Free gpt4 / gpt3.5 access through several reverse engineered api's (nat.dev, poe.com, t3nsor.com etc...) And GPT-4 was announced by OpenAI 14th March. Also would be weird if the initial commit references things that haven't happened yet. I'll say what I said before on earlier submissions about this very project, the naming is very obviously deliberately trying to confuse people to think they are using GPT-4 via that project, when they actually end up not using GPT-4. And judging by the authors comments here on HN, they have no intention of stop misleading people like this either. So good riddance. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610832
- Mystery-Machine 3y ago
  You're right. I stand corrected.
meragrin_ 3y ago
If it were strictly a naming issue, taking down the repository is not an appropriate remedy. They would be demanding the name be changed. It's purely about protecting their revenue stream. They must believe it is just easier to roll over this one project than get their customers in line. I wouldn't be surprised if what their customers are doing is not specifically covered by any agreements and they have no way to force their customers to make changes.
- KyeRussell 3y ago
  Sorry but this is well and truly into the realm of unsubstantiated and unrealistic conspiracy theory. OpenAI can basically do whatever the hell they want here. I imagine there might be more favourable terms for the big kids. But for your average Joe, OpenAI makes basically no commitment. OpenAI aren’t trapped. Not even remotely. You’re basically buying something at the local swap meet. I imagine that the terms via Azure are effectively the same in this particular regard, though I do understand them to be different in other ways.

Deukhoofd 3y ago

> On top of that, GPT is not OpenAI trademark. Not yet, but they're definitely working towards it. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97733259&caseType=SERIAL_...

kvetching 3y ago
they've really done a 360 on openness
- endisneigh 3y ago
  180*
  - ben_w 3y ago
    No, no, I'd say 360 is correct in this case. Possibly not deliberately correct, but it is IMO correct. Trademarks etc. are unavoidable, and also used by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Python Software Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    They're good at moonwalking
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  > they've really done a 360 on openness I don't think that's fair - I'd guess many (probably most) large, fully open source projects have trademarked their name/project to stop people using it for similar projects, scamming, and confusing users. GPT may have been a step too far for OpenAI but even the FSF agree on Trademarks: https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/licensing/2020/FOSSmarksv2.pdf
- imdsm 3y ago
  I mean, they haven't. What does open mean to you? It isn't OpensourceAI. OpenAI have made ChatGPT freely available. They have opened up use of their models to regular people and developers. They have the most powerful LLM and it's open to use by anyone. In addition, they work in the open. They accept the criticisms and continue to work in the open. Also, FWIW, if they did a 360º on openness, they'd be going in the same direction. I think you mean 180º.

capableweb 3y ago

> GPT4free existed way before GPT-4 was announced as far as I know Based on what? First commit seems to have been March 29th (https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/commit/fc995b874199ce985a830bfc17a97759fa7152dc https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/commit/fc995b874199ce985a...), with the express purpose of providing GPT-4 / GPT-3.5 access for free: > # openai-gpt4 > Free gpt4 / gpt3.5 access through several reverse engineered api's (nat.dev, poe.com, t3nsor.com etc...) And GPT-4 was announced by OpenAI 14th March. Also would be weird if the initial commit references things that haven't happened yet. I'll say what I said before on earlier submissions about this very project, the naming is very obviously deliberately trying to confuse people to think they are using GPT-4 via that project, when they actually end up not using GPT-4. And judging by the authors comments here on HN, they have no intention of stop misleading people like this either. So good riddance. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35610832

Mystery-Machine 3y ago
You're right. I stand corrected.

meragrin_ 3y ago

If it were strictly a naming issue, taking down the repository is not an appropriate remedy. They would be demanding the name be changed. It's purely about protecting their revenue stream. They must believe it is just easier to roll over this one project than get their customers in line. I wouldn't be surprised if what their customers are doing is not specifically covered by any agreements and they have no way to force their customers to make changes.

KyeRussell 3y ago
Sorry but this is well and truly into the realm of unsubstantiated and unrealistic conspiracy theory. OpenAI can basically do whatever the hell they want here. I imagine there might be more favourable terms for the big kids. But for your average Joe, OpenAI makes basically no commitment. OpenAI aren’t trapped. Not even remotely. You’re basically buying something at the local swap meet. I imagine that the terms via Azure are effectively the same in this particular regard, though I do understand them to be different in other ways.