4 ms·

Comes off as a weak response IMO. * They allow an opt out for training – but it was introduced in August 2023 and they don't retroactively clean up their model

by paxys 3y ago

Comes off as a weak response IMO. * They allow an opt out for training – but it was introduced in August 2023 and they don't retroactively clean up their model once you do opt out. * Regurgitation is a rare bug – doesn't mean it isn't a problem, or one they cannot be sued over. * Prompts that get ChatGPT to regurgitate are "not typical or allowed user activity" – this is the weakest excuse of all. It is their responsibility to control user behavior on a system they built. If I can type something in and get the response I want then I am using it in the intended way. Otherwise nothing on the internet can ever be illegal, because hey the user was the one who typed the URL.

butlike 3y ago
1. You can't unlearn something 2. If it's right, it's right. Why dilute the answer? 3. What happened to personal responsibility? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  1. Yes you can. You can delete the training models and progress made with copyrighted material. Of course, they don't want to do that.
- itishappy 3y ago
  1. That's the problem. 2. Copyright. If it's a right, it's a right. 3. This is not a universally agreed upon position.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  You can definitely unlearn things with respect to LLM. You retrain. It’s expensive for them, boo hoo.
  - minimaxir 3y ago
    LLMs can't "unlearn" even with additional finetuning. Content drifts towards the newly added material, yes, but it can't forget, and artifacts will still be present.
    - maxglute 3y ago
      I think they meant retrain from ground up. Clean room implementation. Technically feasible but not business feasible. Otherwise learn NDA and get sued for breaking it in the future.
  - StreetChief 3y ago
    you can start from scratch, but you cannot unlearn.
- makingstuffs 3y ago
  Point three is insanely flawed for a multitude of reasons which range from the fact that a gun allows a human to kill people in the heat of the moment, to the fact that a gun enables a human to kill people from hidden/safe space hundreds of metres away.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  When building automated systems, the personal responsibility thing is weird and diluted. Is it openai's fault, or the company using openai in their produce, or the client of that company, or the end user? Sometimes it seems like people are down to give b2b companies a free pass, like a B2C company should be liable for what they send their users, but openai shouldn't be liable for what they send the B2C company. Personal responsibility can apply to LLM providers too.
ben_w 3y ago
> Otherwise nothing on the internet can ever be illegal, because hey the user was the one who typed the URL. It can be illegal to access material that was legal to host, because a user and a host can be in different jurisdictions. It can also be possible to use a tool in an unlawful manner even if user and supplier are in the same jurisdiction, for example you can type up a document that reproduces a work protected by copyright without permission and print it out, and this is on you not on whoever you got the keyboard, computer, and printer from. These may well not be sufficient defence in law, I am not a lawyer and can't tell what the law considers sensible.
megaman821 3y ago
Under your standard, how are any drawing programs legal? I can draw copyrighted Disney characters and it doesn't stop me.
- __loam 3y ago
  The obvious answer here is that the drawing program did not require copyrighted material from Disney to be created.
  - megaman821 3y ago
    What does that have to do with outputs? If ingesting data is a fair use violation it doesn't matter what the model outputs. I was responding that is the responsibility of the program creator stop all fair use violations instigated by its users.
- paxys 3y ago
  Case #1 – I host a database and fill it with copyrighted data. You come by and make queries and access that data. Cast #2 – I host a blank database. You fill it up with copyrighted data, and later access that data. You are alluding to case 2, and yes over there it is debatable who committed the violation. You will mostly likely be at fault if it fits under section 230. This situation however is case 1. OpenAI is the one who accessed the copyrighted data, copied it, hosts it, and is giving everyone access to it. There is zero argument that the user is at fault here (which is what they are trying to say in this blog post).
  - megaman821 3y ago
    ChatGPT isn't a lookup database, it is a generative system. I doubt the court is going to demand perfection from them, only that they don't make producing copyrighted materials trivially easy, and when new ways are found that they respond in a reasonable amount of time to stop it.
    - paxys 3y ago
choppaface 3y ago
> They allow an opt out for training And given how buggy OpenAI is in general, can’t trust them to actually honor this opt-out, nor protect it from abuse (e.g. they scrape copied content). They’ll need a model like YouTube’s scrubber that either deletes content or monetizes it on behalf of the copyright owner. And since OpenAI is making lots of money here, yes there is a technically feasible path towards royalties. But sama thinks he’s cool af and e/sigma blah blah blah. https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-occasionally-reuses-tool-ids-in-the-same-session/577207 https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-occasionally-reuses-t...
visarga 3y ago
> It is their responsibility to control user behavior on a system they built. You do realize that GPT-4 was a moment similar to the first flight of the Wright brothers? You don't have Boeing standards of quality yet.

by paxys 3y ago

butlike 3y ago

1. You can't unlearn something 2. If it's right, it's right. Why dilute the answer? 3. What happened to personal responsibility? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

unethical_ban 3y ago
1. Yes you can. You can delete the training models and progress made with copyrighted material. Of course, they don't want to do that.
itishappy 3y ago
1. That's the problem. 2. Copyright. If it's a right, it's a right. 3. This is not a universally agreed upon position.
endisneigh 3y ago
You can definitely unlearn things with respect to LLM. You retrain. It’s expensive for them, boo hoo.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  LLMs can't "unlearn" even with additional finetuning. Content drifts towards the newly added material, yes, but it can't forget, and artifacts will still be present.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    I think they meant retrain from ground up. Clean room implementation. Technically feasible but not business feasible. Otherwise learn NDA and get sued for breaking it in the future.
- StreetChief 3y ago
  you can start from scratch, but you cannot unlearn.
makingstuffs 3y ago
Point three is insanely flawed for a multitude of reasons which range from the fact that a gun allows a human to kill people in the heat of the moment, to the fact that a gun enables a human to kill people from hidden/safe space hundreds of metres away.
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
When building automated systems, the personal responsibility thing is weird and diluted. Is it openai's fault, or the company using openai in their produce, or the client of that company, or the end user? Sometimes it seems like people are down to give b2b companies a free pass, like a B2C company should be liable for what they send their users, but openai shouldn't be liable for what they send the B2C company. Personal responsibility can apply to LLM providers too.

ben_w 3y ago

> Otherwise nothing on the internet can ever be illegal, because hey the user was the one who typed the URL. It can be illegal to access material that was legal to host, because a user and a host can be in different jurisdictions. It can also be possible to use a tool in an unlawful manner even if user and supplier are in the same jurisdiction, for example you can type up a document that reproduces a work protected by copyright without permission and print it out, and this is on you not on whoever you got the keyboard, computer, and printer from. These may well not be sufficient defence in law, I am not a lawyer and can't tell what the law considers sensible.

megaman821 3y ago

Under your standard, how are any drawing programs legal? I can draw copyrighted Disney characters and it doesn't stop me.

__loam 3y ago
The obvious answer here is that the drawing program did not require copyrighted material from Disney to be created.
- megaman821 3y ago
  What does that have to do with outputs? If ingesting data is a fair use violation it doesn't matter what the model outputs. I was responding that is the responsibility of the program creator stop all fair use violations instigated by its users.
paxys 3y ago
Case #1 – I host a database and fill it with copyrighted data. You come by and make queries and access that data. Cast #2 – I host a blank database. You fill it up with copyrighted data, and later access that data. You are alluding to case 2, and yes over there it is debatable who committed the violation. You will mostly likely be at fault if it fits under section 230. This situation however is case 1. OpenAI is the one who accessed the copyrighted data, copied it, hosts it, and is giving everyone access to it. There is zero argument that the user is at fault here (which is what they are trying to say in this blog post).
- megaman821 3y ago
  ChatGPT isn't a lookup database, it is a generative system. I doubt the court is going to demand perfection from them, only that they don't make producing copyrighted materials trivially easy, and when new ways are found that they respond in a reasonable amount of time to stop it.
  - paxys 3y ago

choppaface 3y ago

> They allow an opt out for training And given how buggy OpenAI is in general, can’t trust them to actually honor this opt-out, nor protect it from abuse (e.g. they scrape copied content). They’ll need a model like YouTube’s scrubber that either deletes content or monetizes it on behalf of the copyright owner. And since OpenAI is making lots of money here, yes there is a technically feasible path towards royalties. But sama thinks he’s cool af and e/sigma blah blah blah. https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-occasionally-reuses-tool-ids-in-the-same-session/577207 https://community.openai.com/t/chatgpt-occasionally-reuses-t...

visarga 3y ago

> It is their responsibility to control user behavior on a system they built. You do realize that GPT-4 was a moment similar to the first flight of the Wright brothers? You don't have Boeing standards of quality yet.