> Can this start breaking the ad-based model of the internet, where a lot of sites rely upon the ad income to run servers?
Hopefully. This would be the best outcome I can think of for the Internet.
Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
61–70 of 194 posts
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't that simple. The scale and totality of the scraping is out of reach for a human. If you previously interacted with people on this issue, you must know that. It is fair for a single human to breathe, but not for a machine to use all oxygen on this planet at once, killing everyone else in the process.
It is in fact that simple. There are dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of legitimate, genuine, serious, real reasons to be concerned and "want something to be done". This isn't it. "Learning is unfair" is not an argument you want to win.
> It is in fact that simple.
Why?
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#63Is 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…
> 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? Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being. It's a product that is built upon data from other sources. The question is if this data is legal to scrape, which it is: Web scraping is legal, US appeals court reaffirms [ https://news.ycom…
> The question is if this data is legal to scrape
...it is? I didn't see that question raised in OP's text at all. What do legacy human legalities have to do with how AI will behave?
> Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being.
Is this important? What is so special about human learning that it puts it in a morally distinct category from the learning that our successors will do?
It sounds like OP is concerned with the ad-driven model of income on the internet, and whether it requires breaking in order for AI to both thrive and be fair.
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#64This reminds me a bit of the criticism of “black box logic” for ML models.
Is there something analogous to saliency maps for LLM?
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#65> I believe it's unfair to these sources that ChatGPT drives away their clicks, and in turn the ad income that would come with them
Google is doing this in search results for years, so does bing. apple also does this in their built in dictionary.
why rant about chatgpt that currently at least is a small company in comparison.
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#66Is 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…
Your argument contains the implicit assumption that we have the same rules for machines that we do for humans.
That is trivially disproved, as is the rest of your argument that follows from it as a premise.
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#67I agree. ChatGPT should cite its sources.
I'm pretty sure ChatGPT doesn't know it's sources. If it generated "that cat sat on the mat", then what (even from a theoretical POV) is the source of the word "mat" ? Note that it's not pulling the whole "cat sat on the mat" sentence from anyplace - that's not how it works - it's just generating this one word at a time based on the statistics (collected over all the text it was fed) of what word is most likely to fo…
> People seem to assume that ChatGPT is pulling entire "facts" from various sources, but that's just not how it works - it's just feeding all the texts into a giant meat grinder of word statistics. It knows about words, not facts.
...yes?
OpenAI: "challenge incorrect assumptions"
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#68Yes, it’s 100% unfair but the net gain to society will be worth it in the long run. Got to break some eggs to make an omelet.
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#69Is 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…
No, it isn't that simple. The scale and totality of the scraping is out of reach for a human. If you previously interacted with people on this issue, you must know that. It is fair for a single human to breathe, but not for a machine to use all oxygen on this planet at once, killing everyone else in the process.
If I woke up tomorrow and breathed all the oxygen, nobody else could breathe. But If I woke up tomorrow and read all the websites on the internet, it wouldn't stop other people from reading them too.
Air is zero-sum. Knowledge is not.
Re: Ask HN: Isn't ChatGPT unfair to the sources it scraped data from?
#70Is 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…
Does anyone actually find these arguments persuasive?
There is really no reason to believe that what chatGPT or stable diffusion does is anything like what "your brain" does--except in the most superficial, inconsequential way.
Second, try applying this logic to literally anything else and you'll see why it's absurd:
"You can't ban cars from driving on sidewalks! If it's acceptable for people to walk on sidewalks, then it has to be acceptable for cars to drive on sidewalks, since it's just automated walking"
"You can't ban airplanes from landing in ponds. They fly 'just like' ducks fly! So if it's acceptable for them, it must be acceptable for airplanes too"