4 ms·
Someone better go tell Open AI
by hammock 11mo ago
Someone better go tell Open AI
- isodev 11mo agoI think a number of lawsuits are in progress of teaching them that particular lesson.
- lazide 11mo agoStill waiting for anything resembling a penalty, been a long time now. 5 years?
- verdverm 11mo agoMost of the time they are hardly penalties and look more like rounding errors to these companies
- sfn42 11mo agoI'm just wondering what gives HN, Reddit etc the right to our comments? If anyone owns this comment it's me IMO. So I don't see any reason why HN should be able to sue anyone for using this freely available information.
- handfuloflight 11mo agoWith Reddit, at least it's the legal agreement you enter into them by creating an account and using it.
- sfn42 11mo agoSo they own my comments because they said so.
- lazide 11mo agoAnd they own the platform. And then you came to the platform (with those rules), and wrote your comment on it. So you agreed to the rules. At least that is what the TOS usually says. You can always get around that by making your own service or the like. Think of it like visiting a foreign country. Like it or not, their rules apply one way or another. If they can enforce them, anyway.
- sfn42 11mo agoYeah I get it. I just don't understand the public outrage. Why is everyone so worried about this? I write stuff knowing it's publicly available, and I don't give a crap about HN or Reddit or whomever's claims to my writings. As far as I'm concerned it's all public domain, so what if OpenAI trains on it? Why should that bother me? I just don't understand, it really just feels like a witch hunt, like everyone just wants to hate AI companies and they'll jump on any bandwagon that's against them no matter how nonsensical it is.
- lazide 11mo agoIf you got replaced at the job you needed by ‘AI’, isn’t it salt in the wound that they used your comments that you wrote without it in mind (in part) to do it? Why wouldn’t someone be mad about that?
- gkbrk 10mo agoNo, they own it because you said so. You "provide them with a global, non-revocable license to do things with the content you submit" as per the agreement you accepted. You're not required to enter into this agreement, this was a totally optional thing you opted to do.
- gunalx 11mo agoBut that is not nessesarily enforceable in every region.
- lazide 11mo agoApparently, very little is enforceable anywhere, based on what the tech companies have been getting away with.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- noitpmeder 11mo agoNot sure it's clear they will learn anything.... My impression was they were winning or settling these suits
- isodev 11mo agoBut is that a reason to keep doing it? Is the penalty the only reason people hold back on doing bad stuff?
- fortyseven 11mo agoDoes profit outweigh the penalty?
- pessimizer 11mo ago(Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) != "bad stuff" (Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) = Potential penalty
- dylan604 11mo ago(Violation of HN Terms & Conditions || Violation of copyright) - Potential penalty = Unsane Profits So the equation still balances for them to not give a damn
- pseudosavant 11mo agoIsn’t that basically how societies work? Different penalties, but some kind of penalties enforcing the boundaries of that society?
- nomdep 11mo agoNot everyone agree over some things being bad
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]