2 ms·

It's also quite ironic how on one hand ML companies feel entitled to use any material they want for training a model, but on the other hand also feel entitled t

It's also quite ironic how on one hand ML companies feel entitled to use any material they want for training a model, but on the other hand also feel entitled to place restrictions on how that model or its output can be used, in some cases even proclaiming that you cannot use the output of their model to train your own model. Copyright for me but not for thee. https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ > What you cannot do. You may not use our Services for any illegal, harmful, or abusive activity. For example, you may not: > Use Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI. Training ChatGPT on the entire corpus of human creation is "fair use", but training a model on ChatGPTs output is "illegal, harmful, or abusive activity".

whimsicalism 2y ago
> training a model on ChatGPTs output is "illegal, harmful, or abusive activity". it doesn't say that and terms of service violations aren't illegal per se. either way, everybody is ignoring these restrictions and OAI is way too afraid to try to enforce it for the reasons you've mentioned
Hizonner 2y ago
> Copyright for me but not for thee. Especially amusing because, although you can argue about whether training a model is an infringment, most of the training data actually have copyrights. ML models, on the other hand, are not works of authorship and have no copyright protection at all, period. Or at least that's the natural interpretation of copyright law as it's been applied everywhere up to this point. I suspect that the large commercial interests involved will manage to buy either favorable (but bogus) court decisions or favorable (but stupid) legislation.