7 ms·
If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001
by wg0 3y ago
If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001 than shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream?
EDIT: scuba diving NOT scooba diving
- terrytanys 3y agoI think what you are doing is great. I would say current way of ChatGPT isn't ideal. Harvesting the data without giving credits. The tech now is great but I believe there is a way for all to WINs.
- p-e-w 3y agoIf I learn something from your StackOverflow answers, do you expect me to share a percentage of my future salary with you?
- terrytanys 3y agoIt is not learning, it is about publishing.
- croes 3y agoCan you share your knowledge with millions at once? If so, then pay.
- p-e-w 3y agoSo there's an infinite pyramid of "who learned what from who", and payment flows upwards along the hierarchy, all the way back to people who are long dead, and then down to their descendants who presumably inherited their "knowledge rights"? You can't be serious. Thank god our world doesn't work like that.
- croes 3y agoIt's not about who learned what from whom, it's about superstar economy. If you serve all customers and leave nothing for the rest, it will be a problem. What do you think why writers and actors have included AI in the reasons of their strike?
- p-e-w 3y ago> What do you think why writers and actors have included AI in the reasons of their strike? Because they are about to become obsolete, and they believe that screaming as loudly as they can is going to stop that. Their chances of success are roughly the same as if they were protesting against the law of gravity.
- vintermann 3y agoNot as obsolete as their bosses/owners have long been. We make our own rules. We decide what to allow and what to value. If technology changes something, it's because we let it.
- scrollaway 3y agoThe fun part about being a strong believer of AI and actually understanding its capacities is being able to tell when people are completely blinded by hype. AI will not make writers “obsolete”, that is utterly absurd. Would you say reality TV made tv writers obsolete? No? Oh well. You get what you pay for. That includes what you pay for as a producer…
- p-e-w 3y ago> AI will not make writers “obsolete”, that is utterly absurd. Of course. And those so-called "computers" won't make human calculators obsolete. After all, they are as large as an entire room, and by the time they are ready to receive input, a human with his slide rule has already computed three and a half entire logarithms! Human creative professions have 5-10 years left, if they are very lucky.
- 3y ago
- tick_tock_tick 3y agoI mean yes? Answer a bunch of stackoverflow questions and you'll hit that.
- golol 3y ago> Can you share your knowledge with millions at once? Yes, I might run a course or something. You are still not entitled to pay.
- ben_w 3y agoIsn't that what everyone who writes on the internet does with every tweet, toot, blog post, vlog, podcast, short, reel, and comment?
- lewhoo 3y agoBut are you human or not ? Because rights and laws that apply to humans do not necessarily apply to objects and vice versa. I don't expect a building permit from you when you stand on a piece of land. LLM's aren't legal entities in the formal sense, are they ?
- gdprrrr 3y agoSO answers are explicitly licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5/3/4, depending on the time it was posted https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing. So no.
- losteric 3y agoWhy? I wouldn't pay you for marginally improving my baking skills either. It is an interesting question. I would have no qualms paying for a textbook or university course for curated learning (worth noting OpenAI has paid datasets too), but paying for (or being paid for) relatively diffuse and low quality content through hobby blogs seems at odds with my expectations as an individual, and as a society we were never (en masse) concerned about things like Google's search excerpt answers...
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoBecause perfect information transfer isn’t usually possible by a human reading a book or website, whereas computer systems can usually do that. If humans could perfectly remember information, I’m sure copyright would be very different.
- tchaffee 3y agoYou might not pay, but ad revenue might.
- wg0 3y agoBut one of my unstated goal is to improve "YOUR" baking skills. That pays me off in satisfaction nevertheless. You might refer me somewhere later on so that pays off or I might have some ads that you might see so that's there. With a gardened proprietary paywalled model, what I wrote ends up as some constituent of giant arrays of floating point numbers which I must pay to use.
- drekipus 3y agoquick back-of-envelope/googling: openai is worth $29,000,000.00 you contributed 0.00000000001 punches numbers in calculator thus the value of your free credits is 0.001 cents. minus any accounting fees.
- VectorLock 3y ago>openai is worth $29,000,000.00 You might have missed a few zeros.
- qup 3y agoHe doesn't believe they have a moat, seemingly!
- gfedtbyby 3y agoMuch of that is Azure credits and not real money.
- CamperBob2 3y agoDepends on what the courts say. We'll have to see.
- exitb 3y agoYou don't have to publish anything on the internet. And when you do, you may limit the allowed audience to just the group of your friends etc. Why publish anything if you worry that someone may consume it?
- tonyedgecombe 3y agoI'm sure this technology is going to dissuade some people from publishing. Why bother if it is going to be regurgitated to everyone and their dog for $10 a month.
- dbeley 3y agoChatGPT is not "someone", it's a black box that will ingest everything at his disposal and can't tell you where he gets the information from. The moral thing to do would be to use opt-in training data.
- ketzo 3y agoCounterpoint (not just to be annoying — I think you pose a very interesting unanswered question): If I read your hobby website about photography and use it to take 1% better pictures, do I owe you 1% of what my clients pay me? I think that probably most people would say no, assuming you could even determine that 1% in a way that both parties agreed was fair. I think generally, we have an understanding that some stuff is put out into the world for other humans to learn from and use to make themselves better, and that they don’t owe the original authors anything other than the price of admission. I guess it comes down to this: do we think that training a model is: - like storing and later reproducing a version of some collected data, or - like learning from collected data, and synthesizing new info? Is there even a meaningful distinction, for a computer? (Is there even a meaningful distinction for a human…?)
- datagram 3y agoI don't think we really even need to dive that deep into the philosophical aspect of this. I think that it's fine to simply treat humans and machines differently, the same way we decided that animals cannot hold copyright for a work. The reason copyright law exists in the first place is due to the difference of scale between copying books by hand and using a machine to do it, so I think "it's different because a machine is doing it" is a completely rational stance to take.
- kasdi 3y agoWhat if very rich people came to your small free-entry photo studio to look at your pictures, and - perhaps because they have very fast jets - also go to every other photo studio in the world to look at every other painter’s pictures? Knowing this, would you still let them in for free? I believe no. Most people would make a distinction between “normal” and “rich”. They would give normal people free access, but the rich should pay for it. It’s like a billionaire asking for a free hot dog. It’s like “come on, you can easily pay $100, which could even sponsor it for the next 100 people”. Here it’s not the AI itself that’s exploiting you. It’s the rich people that make the AI that get even richer - partly thanks to your free work.
- __loam 3y agoI think we need to put this argument in terms of consent and actual harms caused. Human artists are generally down for other human artists to learn from their art and use their stuff as a reference for the purpose of learning, because the next artist generally will have their own style from their own quirks in muscle memory, skill, experience, etc. That contributes meaningfully to Art and keeps the field alive by allowing new artists to enter the field. AI training is basically only extractive and has the potential to severely disrupt the actual field that made the AI systems possible at all. It's a much more mechanical process that the human interaction of studying a master. It doesn't develop any human skills. Even if the processes were the same (and I don't think they are, as someone who has actually done computational psychology research), I would still think the AI companies are doing something they know is harmful to actual creative people that generate real value.
- nomilk 3y agoThis doesn't appear consistent with other visitors to your website. If a cafe owner uses info on your site to improve their baking, should they also be required to share their revenue with you?
- tchaffee 3y agoAre you considering ad revenue?
- TeMPOraL 3y agoThat already puts the website in the sleazy category. "I mixed my helpful information with mind poison" isn't a strong position to argue fair play from.
- tchaffee 3y agoYou missed the more general point that if folks do have a way of making revenue from their content then stealing their content would have a negative impact. Maybe someone has amazing content and offers classes. You might be able to think of other possibilities.
- gfedtbyby 3y agoIf the cafe is a multi-billion corporation that can only exist because it can leech of content created by millions of other people without providing anything at all to them in return (and I'm not necessarily talking about financial compensation) then yeah.. maybe you should.
- dron57 3y agoSo Starbucks? Should they be sharing all their revenue with whoever invented all those Italian coffee drinks?
- gfedtbyby 3y agoStarbucks business model is not entirely (or at all) reliant on the availability of new coffee drink recipes which can only be provided by third parties. So no, I wouldn't say so.
- visarga 3y ago> shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream But you do get paid in kind - you "gave" information for the AI to train on, the aI gives you information back, contextualised to your needs. Sometimes those 1000 tokens are worth much more than $0.06 You still need to be able to pay for inference costs, it's crowded and expensive on GPUs nowadays.
- gfedtbyby 3y agoSince it "gives" the same information to everyone there aren't really that many incentives for you to allow LLM to use your content. "tragedy of the commons" and all that stuff...
- ripvanwinkle 3y agoEvery response so far is no i.e. the hobby website doesn't merit any compensation. A contrarian take to support the original commenter is that if the site owner had ads, i probably got him or her some increment in site visits and helped in some small way with monetization, site ranking and boosted his / her public persona, credibility. When GPT bot visits, none of that happens. Much worse - people who might have visited the hobby site and contributed to traffic and ad revenue will now start getting their answers from the OpenAI chatbot and never visit this hobby site. That's exploitation and I think that's what most of the responses on this thread miss.
- dahwolf 3y agoThe responses are nihilistic libertarian, as is typical here. When a private company takes the sum of human knowledge without permission, attribution or payment and then monetizes it via the back door whilst cutting of any connection between the intended consumer and publisher, then we're dealing with a system I'd describe as criminal. It cannot be morally defended as "fair" in any major economical or political system. The fact that they call it "Open" AI shows the level of trolling involved.
- terrytanys 3y agoI like your pov and I pretty much think the same. Copy for learning is different from copy and publish as your own.
- caesil 3y agoThe LinkedIn case has already established the legality of scraping, so this argument falls flat too.
- gfedtbyby 3y agoI don't think it's so much about legality rather than maintaining incentives (both financial and immaterial) for people to publish high-qualicontent that's available publicly.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- onion2k 3y agoscooba diving This is a bit pedantic but the term is "scuba diving". Scuba is an acronym that's short for "self contained underwater breathing apparatus". It doesn't work if you don't spell it right.
- altdataseller 3y agoChatGPT bot detected
- caesil 3y agoSince that delta is clearly a transformative use of your photo -- as in, the output doesn't even remotely resemble the input -- you don't have any legal claim to it, no. I'm not sure what the plaintiffs arguing otherwise are smoking if they think they can argue it isn't transformative.
- datagram 3y agoI don't think it's that simple. In order to have a claim to fair use, you would have to argue that the derivative work doesn't negatively affect the market for the original. When Google got sued for scanning copyrighted works for Google Books [1], they could claim fair use since they were only letting people see small excerpts from the books. If you can train your bot on my blog post about scuba diving without my permission and then people can ask your bot for scuba diving advice instead of reading my blog, that doesn't seem very fair. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
- dragonwriter 3y ago> I don’t think it’s that simple. In order to have a claim to fair use, you would have to argue that the derivative work doesn’t negatively affect the market for the original. No, you don’t. That’s a factor weighing in favor of fair use, but the fair use factors are not defined in such a way that that is a necessary factor.
- VectorLock 3y agoIf your website appears on the search results of Google and they show ads next to it, aren't you entitled to that revenue too?
- wg0 3y agoGoogle allows me to limitlessly search their index that allows me to find other pages too and in turn, they sell my attention so it is somewhat fair proposition in contrast to a wall gardened AI model being charged by per token such as GPT 4 that includes my content as well.
- VectorLock 3y agoCan you not use ChatGPT as well? I think you'll find if you do try to push Google Search too far, its not quite "limitless" either.
- wg0 3y agoGPT 4 isn't free. On individual and human scale, Google search is virtually limitless. I've been sometimes presented with Captcha when frantically searching something but that too is in distant past like late 2000s Hasn't happened in a long time.
- golol 3y agoI find it very strange to think that you are entitled to anything in return when something views and processes content you have publicly shared.
- OBFUSCATED 3y agoWhat if your website contains incorrect information that makes their model worse?
- rawoke083600 3y agoAhh DarkHatAI-Patterns almost like DarkHat SEO-Techniques.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]