4 ms·

The biggest problem as I see it is that they monetized it, on a massive scale. If this had been open source like they promised, it would seem more like fair use

by Conasg 3y ago

The biggest problem as I see it is that they monetized it, on a massive scale. If this had been open source like they promised, it would seem more like fair use. But to take huge amounts of copyrighted material without consent and effectively sell access to that material? I struggle to see how that could ever be legal.

Centigonal 3y ago
I agree with your main point, but I want to clarify that OpenAI never promised open source. This is a pernicious misunderstanding that OpenAI has been all too happy to leave uncorrected. Open source was never part of the mission, and I can't find any place where OpenAI leadership has implied that it is or will be. From 2016: > They’d raised a billion dollars and hired an impressive team of thirty researchers—but what for? “There are twenty to thirty people in the field, including Nick Bostrom and the Wikipedia article,” Amodei said, “who are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...
- 7e 3y ago
  Sam Altman seems like a snake from that quote.
- Wolfbeta 3y ago
  > I can't find any place where OpenAI leadership has implied that it is or will be. have you tried saying the name out loud?
  - Centigonal 3y ago
    The name is very misleading! Was that a deliberate misdirection? Not sure. Apparently, Elon Musk takes credit for the name and wanted the company's products to be open source. However, Musk has said a lot of things about companies he is involved with that later turn out to be untrue.
    - persolb 3y ago
      Is three times a pattern yet? I love my FSD, and I though Autopilot was great (I got both when they were much cheaper)... but neither name matches the functionality.
    - sublinear 3y ago
      > Musk has said a lot of things about companies he is involved with that later turn out to be untrue. Funny how putting forth lots of contrarian red tape after and because someone has made all the claims and promises has a way of doing that.
intrasight 3y ago
The human brain is trained on copyright material. The human brain can also be monetized. And the human brain is not open source. I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently. Perhaps because they're tools, not people.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  sure. and if you ask me as a human brain to copy code I worked with at a previous (non open-source) company line-by-line, I can get myself and current company in trouble. This usually isn't an issue because human brains aren't usually as good at regurgitating exact copies, but it's still pretty much the foundation of copyright. So why should an artificial brain be treated differently, especially when it's been shown how you can prompt one in a way to almost regurgitate the exact copyright info (similar to how you can prompt a human brain)?
- Centigonal 3y ago
  Human brains aren't birthed by companies who enslave them for exclusive use by their clientele. LLMs and human minds are not comparable.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  slavery is illegal.
  - intrasight 3y ago
    Nobody mentioned slavery
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Others have mentioned the "if the AI has those rights then it's also slavery" angle, but I think there's also a much less-dramatic argument... Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one. That business model is still copyright infringement! It remains so no matter how much you de-automate by having human-brains replace machines at the same tedious tasks. P.S.: Kind of like the inverse of patents, where "$task, but this time with a computer" is not automatically a new patent-able thing.

by Conasg 3y ago

Centigonal 3y ago

I agree with your main point, but I want to clarify that OpenAI never promised open source. This is a pernicious misunderstanding that OpenAI has been all too happy to leave uncorrected. Open source was never part of the mission, and I can't find any place where OpenAI leadership has implied that it is or will be. From 2016: > They’d raised a billion dollars and hired an impressive team of thirty researchers—but what for? “There are twenty to thirty people in the field, including Nick Bostrom and the Wikipedia article,” Amodei said, “who are saying that the goal of OpenAI is to build a friendly A.I. and then release its source code into the world.” > “We don’t plan to release all of our source code,” Altman said. “But let’s please not try to correct that. That usually only makes it worse.” Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-ma...

7e 3y ago
Sam Altman seems like a snake from that quote.
Wolfbeta 3y ago
> I can't find any place where OpenAI leadership has implied that it is or will be. have you tried saying the name out loud?
- Centigonal 3y ago
  The name is very misleading! Was that a deliberate misdirection? Not sure. Apparently, Elon Musk takes credit for the name and wanted the company's products to be open source. However, Musk has said a lot of things about companies he is involved with that later turn out to be untrue.
  - persolb 3y ago
    Is three times a pattern yet? I love my FSD, and I though Autopilot was great (I got both when they were much cheaper)... but neither name matches the functionality.
  - sublinear 3y ago
    > Musk has said a lot of things about companies he is involved with that later turn out to be untrue. Funny how putting forth lots of contrarian red tape after and because someone has made all the claims and promises has a way of doing that.

intrasight 3y ago

The human brain is trained on copyright material. The human brain can also be monetized. And the human brain is not open source. I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently.

JohnFen 3y ago
> I don't see why artificial brains should be treated differently. Perhaps because they're tools, not people.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
sure. and if you ask me as a human brain to copy code I worked with at a previous (non open-source) company line-by-line, I can get myself and current company in trouble. This usually isn't an issue because human brains aren't usually as good at regurgitating exact copies, but it's still pretty much the foundation of copyright. So why should an artificial brain be treated differently, especially when it's been shown how you can prompt one in a way to almost regurgitate the exact copyright info (similar to how you can prompt a human brain)?
Centigonal 3y ago
Human brains aren't birthed by companies who enslave them for exclusive use by their clientele. LLMs and human minds are not comparable.
cyanydeez 3y ago
slavery is illegal.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Nobody mentioned slavery
Terr_ 3y ago
Others have mentioned the "if the AI has those rights then it's also slavery" angle, but I think there's also a much less-dramatic argument... Imagine that Acme Music hires large sweatshops of workers, who are tasked with listening to trending (copyrighted) songs and then go through grueling practice to sing and play near-perfect performances of those songs, delivered to any customer who asks for one. That business model is still copyright infringement! It remains so no matter how much you de-automate by having human-brains replace machines at the same tedious tasks. P.S.: Kind of like the inverse of patents, where "$task, but this time with a computer" is not automatically a new patent-able thing.