Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?

Post by belltaco » Sun, Feb 05, 2023, 4:12 PM UTC

beepbooptheory wrote: post #47

ergonaught wrote: post #13

Is it unfair for you to create content/products/etc after you have read and learned from various sources on the internet, potentially depriving them of clicks/income? People get internet hostile at me for this question, but it really is that simple. They've automated you, and it's definitely going to be a problem, but if it's acceptable for your brain to do the same thing, you're going to have to find a different ang…

Do you think just maybe there is a diffence here because humans need money to survive, and maybe we should have compassion for humans who could hypothetically starve or freeze or suicide or whatever because they have no money? Or is it just silly to care about people like that?

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Feb 05, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

faktory wrote: post #98

anileated wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a reason scraping is a legally grey area. > Web scraping is legal, US appeals court reaffirms First, the case is not closed. [0] Second, to draw an analogy, you can use scraping in the same way you can use a computer: for legal purposes. That is, you cannot use scraping to violate copyright, just as you cannot use a computer to violate copyright. The following being my conjecture (IANAL), there is fair use an…

Yes but that's a technical issue. I took the parent as making a philosophical point and responded in that spirit.

Post by shagie » Sun, Feb 05, 2023, 4:45 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #145

christkv wrote: post #82

Anybody have an idea of what kind of hardware (and cost) you would need to train the model and to execute it ? Obviously storage is not a major factor here.

I seem to recall that the training cost for ChatGPT was in the tens of millions of dollars. Execution cost is on the order of ~$1 per interaction.

Post by beepbooptheory » Sun, Feb 05, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #151

beepbooptheory wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think just maybe there is a diffence here because humans need money to survive, and maybe we should have compassion for humans who could hypothetically starve or freeze or suicide or whatever because they have no money? Or is it just silly to care about people like that?

Isn't that like saying automated looms should be banned because it meant humans would lose jobs to it? Or buggy whip drivers wanting to ban cars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite Might as well ban computers since they automated and eliminated a lot of manual jobs. The problem of humans with no money should be solved by a societ safety net and things like UBI.

Post by anonymouskimmer » Sun, Feb 05, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

lolinder wrote: post #113

hannob wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You usually expect people to cite sources. Granted, that very often doesn't happen, and the amount of citing expected depends on the context. But ChatGPT just doesn't cite sources at all. I think there's a case to be made that they should.

ChatGPT doesn't have a concept of sources. It has weights that together define a function that allow it to guess the most likely next word from the context. As a neat side effect of this contextual next-word guessing, it often can share accurate information. If ChatGPT were to be required to share its sources, they would need a completely different approach. I'm not commenting on whether or not that would be a bad th…