4 ms·

OpenAI Services Agreement: "Customer will not [...] use Output to develop artificial intelligence models that compete with OpenAI’s products and services" Live

OpenAI Services Agreement: "Customer will not [...] use Output to develop artificial intelligence models that compete with OpenAI’s products and services" Live by the sword, die by the sword.

spwa4 1y ago
Didn't a whole bunch of AI companies make the news that they refuse to respect X law in AI training. So far, X has been: * copyright law * trademark law * defamation law (ChatGTP often reports wrong facts about specific people, products, companies, ... most seriously claiming someone was guilty of murder. Getting ChatGPT to say obviously wrong things about products is trivial) * contract law (bypassing scraping restrictions they had agreed as a compay beforehand) * harassment (ChatGPT made pictures depicting specific individuals doing ... well you can guess where this is going. Everything you can imagine. Women, of course. Minors. Politics. Company politics ...) So far, they seem to have gotten away with everything.
- raincole 1y ago
  > defamation law Not sure if you're serious... you think OpenAI should be held responsible for everything their LLM ever said? You can't make a token generator unless the tokens generated always happen to represent factual sentences?
  - spwa4 1y ago
    Given that they publish everything their AI says? That that's in fact the business model? (in other words, they publish everything their AI says for money) Quite frankly, yes. If I told people you are a murderer, for money, I'd expect to be sued and I'd expect to be convicted.
    - llbbdd 1y ago
      If you had a disclaimer (like OpenAI) does, probably different story
      - shakna 1y ago
        Disclaimers do not shield you from the majority of tort law. There's a reason South Park makes fun of such disclaimers.
    - llbbdd 1y ago
      Nope - they do not charge you for truth
    - mhh__ 1y ago
      But you aren't an LLM (that we know of I suppose)
      - spwa4 1y ago
        I am a company though. Well, that's how I work. So why should it be different for me vs OpenAI or anyone else?
- visarga 1y ago
  > trademark law Presumably an AI should know about the trademarks, they are part of the world too. There is no point shielding LLMs from trademarks in the wild. A text editor can also infringe trademarks, depending how you use it. AI is taking its direction from prompts, humans are driving it.
- mhh__ 1y ago
  Most of these things are extremely valuable for humanity and therefore I think it's a very good thing that we have had a light touch approach to it so far in the west. e.g. ignoring that I find that openai, Google, and anthropic in particular do take harassment and defamation extremely seriously (it takes serious effort to get chatgpt to write a bob saget joke let alone something seriously illegal), if they were bound by "normal" law it would be a sepulchral dalliance with safety-ism that would probably kill the industry OR just enthrone (probably) Google and Microsoft as the winners forever.

OpenAI Services Agreement: "Customer will not [...] use Output to develop artificial intelligence models that compete with OpenAI’s products and services" Live by the sword, die by the sword.

spwa4 1y ago

Didn't a whole bunch of AI companies make the news that they refuse to respect X law in AI training. So far, X has been: * copyright law * trademark law * defamation law (ChatGTP often reports wrong facts about specific people, products, companies, ... most seriously claiming someone was guilty of murder. Getting ChatGPT to say obviously wrong things about products is trivial) * contract law (bypassing scraping restrictions they had agreed as a compay beforehand) * harassment (ChatGPT made pictures depicting specific individuals doing ... well you can guess where this is going. Everything you can imagine. Women, of course. Minors. Politics. Company politics ...) So far, they seem to have gotten away with everything.

raincole 1y ago
> defamation law Not sure if you're serious... you think OpenAI should be held responsible for everything their LLM ever said? You can't make a token generator unless the tokens generated always happen to represent factual sentences?
- spwa4 1y ago
  Given that they publish everything their AI says? That that's in fact the business model? (in other words, they publish everything their AI says for money) Quite frankly, yes. If I told people you are a murderer, for money, I'd expect to be sued and I'd expect to be convicted.
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    If you had a disclaimer (like OpenAI) does, probably different story
    - shakna 1y ago
      Disclaimers do not shield you from the majority of tort law. There's a reason South Park makes fun of such disclaimers.
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    Nope - they do not charge you for truth
  - mhh__ 1y ago
    But you aren't an LLM (that we know of I suppose)
    - spwa4 1y ago
      I am a company though. Well, that's how I work. So why should it be different for me vs OpenAI or anyone else?
visarga 1y ago
> trademark law Presumably an AI should know about the trademarks, they are part of the world too. There is no point shielding LLMs from trademarks in the wild. A text editor can also infringe trademarks, depending how you use it. AI is taking its direction from prompts, humans are driving it.
mhh__ 1y ago
Most of these things are extremely valuable for humanity and therefore I think it's a very good thing that we have had a light touch approach to it so far in the west. e.g. ignoring that I find that openai, Google, and anthropic in particular do take harassment and defamation extremely seriously (it takes serious effort to get chatgpt to write a bob saget joke let alone something seriously illegal), if they were bound by "normal" law it would be a sepulchral dalliance with safety-ism that would probably kill the industry OR just enthrone (probably) Google and Microsoft as the winners forever.