4 ms·
OpenAI’s Sora made me crazy AI videos then the CTO answered most of my questions
- ExMachina73 3y agoI'm surprised OpenAI's own legal team or PR hasn't come up with a boilerplate response to these type of questions yet. Seems like something they should expect to be asked and be prepared for by now?
- ronsor 3y agoThere is literally no good that could come to her or OpenAI by answering the question. That's why she didn't give a real answer.
- godelski 3y agoThere is no good dodging the question and saying "I don't know." She could have just stonewalled "we used publicly available and licensed data" and that would have been far better. Edit: Mind you, she did say that they used publicly available and licensed data. So if you're saying she has no motivation to say this, she already said it.
- booi 3y agoThat would probably be a lie though. That seems worse.
- tangjurine 3y agoWell saying that isn't saying we didn't use non public data so it's not exactly a lie
- godelski 3y agoSo our options are 1. She doesn't know and appears incompetent. 2. She does know and is lying (as you see, this is the main belief). 3. She does know in part and that part could include an honest use of this claim. (She doesn't know all, but what she does know is legal) 4. She does know in part and knows that some was illegally obtained Truth be told, unless it is in writing somewhere that she knows of illegal data being used, she could post hoc claim 3. But if she does know illegal, then option 1 still gets her in trouble for the same reasons 3 would. The only difference is she appears incompetent by saying I don't know. Remember, post hoc she can say "At the time I was not aware of any illegally obtained works being used to train SORA". Claiming she doesn't know now would be WORSE if that is the situation and it came to light because it is a more explicit form of deciept. Edit: Mind you, she basically took 1 and 3. She did say it used publicly available and licensed data.
- killingtime74 3y agoOption 5, she'll have to tell when she gets subpoenaed. Just a matter of time
- godelski 3y agoThat's already considered
- Lockal 3y ago5. "you won't understand" or "you're not yet ready to comprehend" or "insufficient data for meaningful answer". When journalist spends half of the time speaking about safety and identification, the interviewee certainly realizes that the journalist and his audience do not understand the basic principles of algorithms. - Researcher: We have made an ultra-efficient algorithm for sorting data! - Journalist: And what protections have you put in place against processing copyrighted results? What about gender neutrality? And how should we distinguish between data sorted by a conventional algorithm and yours? - Researcher: ...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bamboozled 3y agoBut it's again, really unfortunate about the name of the company because you'd thin the "open" part of the name, the mission statement and the fact it's supposed to be a not for profit would mean there is some level of transparency afforded to the person asking the question. You could see her mind click into a new gear when that question was asked. Just feels like more shadiness from this company.
- hiddencost 3y agoThey lied to us.
- ametrau 3y agoIs this implementation detail something she's* supposed to know?
- yellow_lead 3y agoIt's she*
- mplewis 3y agoYes, a CEO is generally expected to know the basis of their latest big product offering.
- godelski 3y agoCTO btw, not CEO. Which kinda makes it worse.
- jfoster 3y agoThe interviewer asked "videos from YouTube?" and the answer was "I'm actually not sure about that." Similarly no answer about videos from Facebook or Instagram. It's a kind of significant implementation detail, wouldn't you say? If the discussion were about minor sources of videos it would be a lot more understandable.
- nerbert 3y agoMight as well shield yourself from future litigation at the price of looking like a detached CTO.
- Jensson 3y agoSad when a CTO is trained to answer legally correct, but that is how for-profits are run.
- est 3y agocopyright is kinda important, espcially for "generative" AIs.
- re-thc 3y ago
- jfoster 3y agoThe part in question is around the 4 min 20 sec mark.
- dorkwood 3y agoIt may not be a lie. She may actually not know if YouTube, Instagram, or Facebook videos were used to train Sora. This way she can protect herself when the legal shitstorm inevitably hits, and throw some of her engineers under the bus instead.
- dns_snek 3y agoSo your theory is that employees are covertly scraping and infringing on petabytes of copyrighted data (or more) without the knowledge and approval of their management who would have to answer for it? They 100% use full-length, copyrighted movies at OpenAI. Try using Whisper and see how often you get an obvious hint like "Subtitles by <RandomInternetUser1234>"
- paxys 3y agoOpenAI's CTO knows exactly what data was used to train Sora. She is just not going to say it publicly in front of a reporter because she knows that lawyers from every large content owner and content host are listening to every word, ready to pounce.
- mtillman 3y agoData provenance is a term used in medicine[1] and seems like a rather straightforward way to handle this. However, I would consider that they paid for this data and the source has a non disclosure in place. [1] https://www.nnlm.gov/guides/data-glossary/data-provenance https://www.nnlm.gov/guides/data-glossary/data-provenance
- Jensson 3y agoI think a part of what OpenAI used to poach scientists was that they had less such checks and rules than Google. When I worked at Google they started to add a ton of extra such checks on all the data and the data scientists were really unhappy about that, they wanted to train on whatever they want without any concern over legal issues, I can see OpenAI successfully poaching a lot of people just by saying there they can do legally questionable things.
- ahahahahah 3y agoYeah I agree, data scientists are some of the most naive or immoral people I've worked with. It's unfortunate that the occupation has built a culture of not giving a shit about privacy, security, etc.
- killingtime74 3y agoThis is not medicine, this is copyright law. Copyright law is already well established.
- __loam 3y agoThat it is, which means you should already know that fair use is more complex than simply "was it transformative" and that fair use is enforced on a case by case basis. We sure are learning a lot about the law these days!
- swimwiththebeat 3y agoShe definitely knows, she’s just trying to avoid any chance of future litigation by feigning ignorance. Makes sense since OpenAI’s been getting a lot of bad press for using copyright data in training their models.
- jstummbillig 3y agoCalling it "lot of bad press" seems like an overstatement (maybe looking through hn tinted glasses). Overall, I do not get the impression that people care super much relativ to the overall public interest in everything OpenAI.
- __loam 3y agoThey've been sued multiple times for it, including by the New York Times.
- jstummbillig 3y agoI would be shocked if there weren't, being a company with over hundred millions users, that is in the process of reshaping the world (for better or worse). Being sued in general is not that great of an indicator for anything, in a world filled with lawyers and angry people.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoIf someone asks an executive whether they do something illegal, and they reply that they don’t know; does it really protect them from anything or does it simply show negligence?
- HeartStrings 3y agoA bit yes
- dogma1138 3y agoIt protects the company, admission is pretty much asking for a law suite. For these companies it’s especially important since even if copyright claims will come down the line they need to become big enough to be able to push back on them so they could force a favorable settlement.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dudeinjapan 3y agoOpenAI should make an AGI that trains itself on whatever data it decides then launches new products. It’s called “plausible deniability”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dang 3y agoThe submitted title ("OpenAI CTO Doesn't Know What Data Was Used to Train Sora") broke HN's guideline about titles: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (Assuming that the youtube title didn't change, of course.) This thread is a good example of how damaging that can be because threads are so sensitive to initial conditions. The comments are basically all responding to the editorialized title, and most are just angry reflexive responses. It's not possible to salvage a thread once it's gotten going like this. Maybe there are interesting things in the video, maybe not, but if there are, it's too late for them to get discussed here.
- mdrzn 3y agoI agree, this video would have benefitted from a clean repost with the correct title.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoI disagree, it’s mostly a boring PR video targeted towards a general audience. The clipped part the original title referred to is more interesting than the rest of the video.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]