3 ms·

I find it so crazy everyone is so concerned about the terms of service, while in every other thread we have discussions on artists rights... Artists must allow

by pests 3y ago

I find it so crazy everyone is so concerned about the terms of service, while in every other thread we have discussions on artists rights... Artists must allow AI companies to harvest and learn from their output but people can't take OpenAI output for the same thing? These companies already offer "styles" of other artists, what's wrong with making a "OpenAI" style? I feel so many has lost the hacker spirit.

behnamoh 3y ago
Don't conflate "hacker spirit" with "unethical spirit".
- pests 3y ago
  I'm not.
- albert180 3y ago
  I don't see anything unethical. OpenAI doesn't care about the copyright of the people who have generated their training data. Why should I care about theirs?
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Especially since content produced entirely by AI is not protected by copyright in the US. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright
  - deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
    Ethically you might not respect it, but practically, you might not want to be the one testing their TOS in court — or maybe you do. In either case, it’s worth caring about at least a little. Someone with gumption might just go ahead and use GPT to train a model and then open it up as a paid competitor. Poking the bear is certainly an interesting way to spend a year for the adventurous.
  - MacsHeadroom 3y ago
    You shouldn't. You should care about the contractual terms you agreed to with them. If you did not agree to their ToS and acquired content from OpenAI elsewhere, go ahead.
    - albert180 3y ago
      Nah I'm a end consumer in Europe. Most of the bullshit companies write in their ToS isn't applicable at all here, because Lawmakers know that nobody reads them anyway I doubt that even in the US they wouldn't sue if they weren't 100% of winning. They wouldn't like to have a precedent that you can use it to train other models, where right now they can scare away most people from doing it
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Don't conflate "ethical" with "legal."
  - thrwayaistartup 3y ago
    Yes, but opposite conclusion. If I were the author I'd never do this because I would want an exit and this strategy + twitter thread wildly complicates any potential exit. Even though I don't think there is anything particularly morally problematic here (I'm an information freedom maximalist).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
freeqaz 3y ago
Is there any precedent to suggest that OpenAI is actually able to enforce their TOS? I know that if you use GPL software that the outputs aren't subject to GPL. Is that the case for OpenAI?
ben_w 3y ago
ToS rules are contractual, so they apply if your use of their services even when copyright doesn't. Conversely, if you don't use their services, as the output of AI models is (reportedly) non-copyrightable, I'd assume you're free to train on it so long as you don't actually make the requests yourself? But I'm not a lawyer, and I'd ask one first before doing anything that risks expensive mistakes.
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  Im not sure OP is violating their ToS since they're not selling the model access to compete with chatgpt they're two different products.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I think only some of their ToS are conditioned on competing, where I (not a lawyer) would seek advice first is: """For example, you may not: … • Attempt to or assist anyone to reverse engineer, decompile or discover the source code or underlying components of our Services, including our models, algorithms, or systems (except to the extent this restriction is prohibited by applicable law). """ May be fine, IDK, I'm not a lawyer. I may also be looking at the wrong ToS entirely: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  Whatever the laws are, imo it's pretty clear that OpenAI are robber barons of data. It's totally justified to steal from a robber baron. How many people did they ask consent from before hoovering up their data? We should be doing everything possible, including breaking ToS, to get as much value from ChatGPT
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > it's pretty clear that OpenAI are robber barons of data. It's totally justified to steal from a robber baron. How many people did they ask consent from before hoovering up their data? Clear morally if you assume their stated goals are bad faith and just arse covering[0], not necessarily in law — by way of example, I have, sincerely, wondered how Google got away with crawling the web to create its search index. As this was before they were sued by newspapers for including snippets of search results, they ultimately didn't get away with it. > We should be doing everything possible, including breaking ToS, to get as much value from ChatGPT Generating additional and better models may be a tempting "screw the rich" option, but also the exact wrong option if you see their behaviour as IP theft that needs to be fixed — go to court, order the model to be destroyed, don't make more of them. [0] I don't think they were originally, but (a) I generally look for the best in people, and (b) even if I'm right it is always possible they were/will be swayed by the presence of a huge pile of non-hypothetical money. Does anyone besides the old board of directors even know why that board fired Altman a few months back?
ShamelessC 3y ago
> Artists must allow AI companies to harvest and learn from their output but people can't take OpenAI output for the same thing? No one said that. Just that you're probably violating ToS and OpenAI might come after you. Is that fair in light of what OpenAI has done? Of course not. But if you're running a business, it's still worth considering.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by pests 3y ago

behnamoh 3y ago

Don't conflate "hacker spirit" with "unethical spirit".

pests 3y ago
I'm not.
albert180 3y ago
I don't see anything unethical. OpenAI doesn't care about the copyright of the people who have generated their training data. Why should I care about theirs?
- DennisP 3y ago
  Especially since content produced entirely by AI is not protected by copyright in the US. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright
- deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
  Ethically you might not respect it, but practically, you might not want to be the one testing their TOS in court — or maybe you do. In either case, it’s worth caring about at least a little. Someone with gumption might just go ahead and use GPT to train a model and then open it up as a paid competitor. Poking the bear is certainly an interesting way to spend a year for the adventurous.
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
  You shouldn't. You should care about the contractual terms you agreed to with them. If you did not agree to their ToS and acquired content from OpenAI elsewhere, go ahead.
  - albert180 3y ago
    Nah I'm a end consumer in Europe. Most of the bullshit companies write in their ToS isn't applicable at all here, because Lawmakers know that nobody reads them anyway I doubt that even in the US they wouldn't sue if they weren't 100% of winning. They wouldn't like to have a precedent that you can use it to train other models, where right now they can scare away most people from doing it
Paul-Craft 3y ago
Don't conflate "ethical" with "legal."
- thrwayaistartup 3y ago
  Yes, but opposite conclusion. If I were the author I'd never do this because I would want an exit and this strategy + twitter thread wildly complicates any potential exit. Even though I don't think there is anything particularly morally problematic here (I'm an information freedom maximalist).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

freeqaz 3y ago

Is there any precedent to suggest that OpenAI is actually able to enforce their TOS? I know that if you use GPL software that the outputs aren't subject to GPL. Is that the case for OpenAI?

ben_w 3y ago

ToS rules are contractual, so they apply if your use of their services even when copyright doesn't. Conversely, if you don't use their services, as the output of AI models is (reportedly) non-copyrightable, I'd assume you're free to train on it so long as you don't actually make the requests yourself? But I'm not a lawyer, and I'd ask one first before doing anything that risks expensive mistakes.

dvngnt_ 3y ago
Im not sure OP is violating their ToS since they're not selling the model access to compete with chatgpt they're two different products.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I think only some of their ToS are conditioned on competing, where I (not a lawyer) would seek advice first is: """For example, you may not: … • Attempt to or assist anyone to reverse engineer, decompile or discover the source code or underlying components of our Services, including our models, algorithms, or systems (except to the extent this restriction is prohibited by applicable law). """ May be fine, IDK, I'm not a lawyer. I may also be looking at the wrong ToS entirely: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
jurynulifcation 3y ago
Whatever the laws are, imo it's pretty clear that OpenAI are robber barons of data. It's totally justified to steal from a robber baron. How many people did they ask consent from before hoovering up their data? We should be doing everything possible, including breaking ToS, to get as much value from ChatGPT
- ben_w 3y ago
  > it's pretty clear that OpenAI are robber barons of data. It's totally justified to steal from a robber baron. How many people did they ask consent from before hoovering up their data? Clear morally if you assume their stated goals are bad faith and just arse covering[0], not necessarily in law — by way of example, I have, sincerely, wondered how Google got away with crawling the web to create its search index. As this was before they were sued by newspapers for including snippets of search results, they ultimately didn't get away with it. > We should be doing everything possible, including breaking ToS, to get as much value from ChatGPT Generating additional and better models may be a tempting "screw the rich" option, but also the exact wrong option if you see their behaviour as IP theft that needs to be fixed — go to court, order the model to be destroyed, don't make more of them. [0] I don't think they were originally, but (a) I generally look for the best in people, and (b) even if I'm right it is always possible they were/will be swayed by the presence of a huge pile of non-hypothetical money. Does anyone besides the old board of directors even know why that board fired Altman a few months back?

ShamelessC 3y ago

> Artists must allow AI companies to harvest and learn from their output but people can't take OpenAI output for the same thing? No one said that. Just that you're probably violating ToS and OpenAI might come after you. Is that fair in light of what OpenAI has done? Of course not. But if you're running a business, it's still worth considering.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]