3 ms·

If he didn't opt out I'm not sure I'd agree that it was fair game. I'm pretty sure it would be considered plagiary amongst colleagues and it is a terrible prec

If he didn't opt out I'm not sure I'd agree that it was fair game. I'm pretty sure it would be considered plagiary amongst colleagues and it is a terrible precedent if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable. You'd effectively sign away any and all rights to anything built with AI if OpenAI chooses to reengineer it before you.

deleted 26d ago
[deleted]
unrented7977 26d ago
> if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable I have terrible news about how literally every leading AI model was trained
- 20k 26d ago
  That doesn't make it fine. We should not excuse this behaviour just because its rampant already, especially when it comes to such a serious prize
  - FuckButtons 26d ago
    Sure, but unless you’ve got some exceptionally deep pockets, congress has seemingly no interest in turning the fact that it’s ethically bankrupt into any practical recourse. Ai companies got where they are by stealing all of the intellectual property from human history. It seems entirely likely that their goal is to purloin everything produced going forward as well.
  - m00x 26d ago
    You're getting a massive discount because you're helping to train the model. If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates. This is well-known to anyone in the industry.
    - dogomatic 26d ago
      If you think this through, it becomes a little classist
    - Tanjreeve 26d ago
      > If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates. That's a pinky swear. Especially as data gets harder to come by I'm curious how long till there's a scandal on that too.
      - edot 25d ago
        If you don't trust the labs directly, you can always use AWS Bedrock or Azure Foundry which should have a much stronger incentive to not train. They make money from asset rental, not selling models. I'd be shocked if they were training.
        Tanjreeve 23d ago
        This isn’t me advocating for maximum paranoia. I’m just saying that the “privacy” aspect of the API pricing is just a business promise. I do personal coding on API pricing with Claude mainly because a) I’m normally using it quite sparingly b) the commercial relationship is a lot more transparent than these subsidised relationships where they “may” be training on your work but can’t really seem to answer what that means.
- HotHotLava 26d ago
  I feel like there's a pretty huge difference between using inputs and outputs as part of a general training corpus, and looking at a specific users workspace after hearing rumours and yoinking their ideas to beat them to the point. Unless OpenAI finished a whole new training run on the latest data in the last few days, the possible allegation seems to be the latter.
  - scarab92 26d ago
    Either are possible. They have been collaborating on this solution for a year, and Astra was trained in February this year so it’s entirely possible the direction of their research was in the training corpus.
14u2c 26d ago
Mining the chats for "good ideas" would be untenable, but that's a different situation than data ending up in a training set for a problem that OpenAI also happens to be independently working on. Still, I opt out (business plan), and I don't know why you wouldn't.
- rsfern 26d ago
  Why would mining chat transcripts for ideas be untenable? They already run a summarization model to auto-title the chat, and to run a bunch of safety filters, and presumably to score transcript quality for A/B testing and to collect more finetuning data. Seems like evaluating for open research questions and approaches would be pretty trivial extension of this, after all it’s kind of their core business model
  - 14u2c 26d ago
    Indefensible, not impossible. As you say it is quite technically feasible.
- shiandow 26d ago
  In what way are those two different? What makes the training data valuable if not to extract valuable information from it? They sure as hell don't need it just to produce English.
awesomeMilou 26d ago
That was.. obvious? How are you shocked? Honestly, how insane must the suspension of disbelief on this site be, that anyone here is shocked?
- logans_gun 25d ago
  You’d be surprised how many blind spots this site has.
ano-ther 26d ago
It’s also very shortsighted to stiff a customer like that. Why would I trust them with my data and ideas?
- clickety_clack 26d ago
  I think that’s what we’re all talking about here, you shouldn’t.
olalonde 26d ago
If their solutions are significantly different, as OpenAI claims, would it still be considered plagiarism?
CrankyBear 26d ago
"If we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on." Ah, that's all AI does.

deleted 26d ago

[deleted]

unrented7977 26d ago

> if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable I have terrible news about how literally every leading AI model was trained

20k 26d ago
That doesn't make it fine. We should not excuse this behaviour just because its rampant already, especially when it comes to such a serious prize
- FuckButtons 26d ago
  Sure, but unless you’ve got some exceptionally deep pockets, congress has seemingly no interest in turning the fact that it’s ethically bankrupt into any practical recourse. Ai companies got where they are by stealing all of the intellectual property from human history. It seems entirely likely that their goal is to purloin everything produced going forward as well.
- m00x 26d ago
  You're getting a massive discount because you're helping to train the model. If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates. This is well-known to anyone in the industry.
  - dogomatic 26d ago
    If you think this through, it becomes a little classist
  - Tanjreeve 26d ago
    > If you want to have ZDR, you have to pay API rates. That's a pinky swear. Especially as data gets harder to come by I'm curious how long till there's a scandal on that too.
    - edot 25d ago
      If you don't trust the labs directly, you can always use AWS Bedrock or Azure Foundry which should have a much stronger incentive to not train. They make money from asset rental, not selling models. I'd be shocked if they were training.
      - Tanjreeve 23d ago
        This isn’t me advocating for maximum paranoia. I’m just saying that the “privacy” aspect of the API pricing is just a business promise. I do personal coding on API pricing with Claude mainly because a) I’m normally using it quite sparingly b) the commercial relationship is a lot more transparent than these subsidised relationships where they “may” be training on your work but can’t really seem to answer what that means.
HotHotLava 26d ago
I feel like there's a pretty huge difference between using inputs and outputs as part of a general training corpus, and looking at a specific users workspace after hearing rumours and yoinking their ideas to beat them to the point. Unless OpenAI finished a whole new training run on the latest data in the last few days, the possible allegation seems to be the latter.
- scarab92 26d ago
  Either are possible. They have been collaborating on this solution for a year, and Astra was trained in February this year so it’s entirely possible the direction of their research was in the training corpus.

14u2c 26d ago

Mining the chats for "good ideas" would be untenable, but that's a different situation than data ending up in a training set for a problem that OpenAI also happens to be independently working on. Still, I opt out (business plan), and I don't know why you wouldn't.

rsfern 26d ago
Why would mining chat transcripts for ideas be untenable? They already run a summarization model to auto-title the chat, and to run a bunch of safety filters, and presumably to score transcript quality for A/B testing and to collect more finetuning data. Seems like evaluating for open research questions and approaches would be pretty trivial extension of this, after all it’s kind of their core business model
- 14u2c 26d ago
  Indefensible, not impossible. As you say it is quite technically feasible.
shiandow 26d ago
In what way are those two different? What makes the training data valuable if not to extract valuable information from it? They sure as hell don't need it just to produce English.

awesomeMilou 26d ago

That was.. obvious? How are you shocked? Honestly, how insane must the suspension of disbelief on this site be, that anyone here is shocked?

logans_gun 25d ago
You’d be surprised how many blind spots this site has.

ano-ther 26d ago

It’s also very shortsighted to stiff a customer like that. Why would I trust them with my data and ideas?

clickety_clack 26d ago
I think that’s what we’re all talking about here, you shouldn’t.

olalonde 26d ago

If their solutions are significantly different, as OpenAI claims, would it still be considered plagiarism?

CrankyBear 26d ago

"If we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on." Ah, that's all AI does.