5 ms·
This is a flagrantly blatant violation of OpenAI's terms of use for businesses [1]. I have two issues with those terms: 1. I think that eventually US courts w
by thrwayaistartup 3y ago
This is a flagrantly blatant violation of OpenAI's terms of use for businesses [1].
I have two issues with those terms:
1. I think that eventually US courts will determine one of two things: that OpenAI et al are guilty of massive infringement, or that these sorts of restrictive terms aren't enforceable. The need that these companies are trying to treat with terms on output seems unlikely to work out in the end. But we'll see.
2. Even if the terms are enforcable, the human review step in the tweet seems like it's make OpenAI's threading-the-needle position here even more fucking difficult to be taken seriously by any jury or judge.
However, enforcing the terms seems real damn hard in the case of small businesses... as long as you're not stupid enough to admit to violating them in a twitter thread, of course.
I think the author is probably safe from legal action for now because I don't think OpenAI is particularly eager to test the enforcability of their terms. And even if they are, doing so in this case is super high risk and super low reward. Still, I wouldn't test it by openly admitting to ToS violation like this. At the very least seems like a good way to get cut off from OAI APIs.
[1] https://openai.com/policies/business-terms https://openai.com/policies/business-terms
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ilaksh 3y agoNot sure they would bother suing. I don't think their TOS is fair but I would be concerned about having the API access cancelled.
- maxlamb 3y agoI'm sorry but could you explain how this is a violation of OpenAI's Terms of Use? Which term does it violate exactly?
- iamjackg 3y ago> 2. Restrictions > (e) use Output (as defined below) to develop any artificial intelligence models that compete with our products and services. However, you can use Output to (i) develop artificial intelligence models primarily intended to categorize, classify, or organize data (e.g., embeddings or classifiers), as long as such models are not distributed or made commercially available to third parties and (ii) fine tune models provided as part of our Services; Depending on what kind of model they trained, they might be breaking these terms.
- padolsey 3y agoSo, best to do it without publicizing. :D
- maxlamb 3y agoRight but the condition is for "models that compete with our products and service". Can you really argue that this niche app competes with OpenAI's products? Couldn't you make an argument that this only applies to products and services that directly compete with OpenAI, i.e. other LLM API's or a ChatGPT competitor such as a Claude or Bart?
- elicksaur 3y agoThe person who created it is using it as a direct replacement to paying OpenAI. They probably won’t consider pursuing this small individual, but if a big enough company did it, they’d probably have a problem with that.
- maxlamb 3y agoA direct replacement is still different than a “competing product” which implies is sold to customers. His product (the app) doesn’t compete with OpenAI. I guess a lawyer would need to chime in
- michaelt 3y ago> 2. Restrictions [...] You will not, and will not permit End Users to: [...] use Output [...] to develop any artificial intelligence models that compete with our products and services. Of course, you can simply ignore it, just like OpenAI is happy to ignore the terms of services on scraped websites and pirated ebooks and so on. What are they going to do - claim your model is a derivative work of the training data?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jurynulifcation 3y agoHow many terms of service did OpenAI break to gather their initial training set? Turnabout is fair play, this is justifiable piracy.
- kjqgqkejbfefn 3y agousername checks out
- jurynulifcation 3y agoThanks! Have a nice day. Amy thoughts on the topic of AI piracy?