Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 342 posts

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#31

Post by karmasimida »

kleiba wrote: post #17

Hard to believe that is true, or else Bard would probably not perform so bad.

Yeah, Bard’s replies aren’t nothing like that from ChatGPT.

I wonder is it possible to use ChatGPT for competitor analysis?

If the responses are not used in the final training data I don’t see how this is being something controversial

Also if Google’s compliance team can’t even do, as recognizing this level of legal risk, even if there are probably an army of top paid lawyers they hired, I don’t know what to say. Maybe they should fall then.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#32

Post by WoodenChair »

anonyfox wrote: post #29
mattbee wrote: post #6

Good luck to them. AI models are automated plagiarism, top to bottom. None of us gave OpenAI permission to derive their model from our writing, surely billions of dollars worth, but they took it anyway. Copyright hasn't caught up so all that stolen value rests securely with OpenAI. If we're not getting that back, I don't see why AI competitors should have any qualms about borrowing each others' work.

I am strongly in favor of eliminating copyright completely everywhere, soooo I am pretty fine with that. The other direction should be more enforce-able: stuff derived from open data must also be made open again, like the GPL but for data (and therefore ML stuff).

Right but in a world where copyright does exist we arguably have the worst of both worlds. Small players are not protected at all from scraping and big players are leveraging all of their work and have the legal resources to form a moat.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#33

Post by nico »

Jevon23 wrote: post #22
nico wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a Google employee working on this thing ever agreed to OpenAI's terms of service, they might be screwed. From OpenAI's terms: (c) Restrictions. You may not (i) use the Services in a way that infringes, misappropriates or violates any person’s rights; (ii) reverse assemble, reverse compile, decompile, translate or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or underlying components of models, algorithms, and syst…

I hereby set a terms of service for everything I post on the internet from now on. OpenAI may not train future GPT models on my words or my code without my express written permission. … Somehow, I don’t think they’ll care.

Sure. If you can get everyone to create an account and agree to those terms before reading your comments, you might have a case.

Otherwise, it will be considered public information, at which point it is free to be scraped by anyone (see the precedent set by the LinkedIn/hiQ case).

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#34

Post by godzillabrennus »

century19 wrote: post #14

Google accused Microsoft Bing of using them for page rankings a few years ago. Setup a sting to show that when you searched for something unique on Google using MS Explorer, shortly afterwards the same search result would start showing up on Bing. This was seen as deeply embarrassing for Microsoft at the time.

The deeply embarrassing period at Microsoft began and ended when Ballmer ran the show. The Bing results saga was the hangover.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#35

Post by ankit219 »

According to the article, the story goes this way: This engineer Jacob Devlin raised his concerns on training Bard with ShareGPT data. Then he directly joined OpenAI.

He also claims that Google were about to do it, and then they stopped after his warnings. And presumably removed every trace of openai's responses.

A couple of things:

1. So, Bard could have been trained on ShareGPT but it's not - according to the same engineer who raised the concern (and google denial in the verge).

2. Since he directly joined OpenAI, he could have told them and they could have taken action, and nothing is public on that front yet. Probably nothing to see here.

Edit: The engineer too wasnt directly involved with the Bard team, it appeared to him that Bard team was heavily relying on ShareGPT.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#36

Post by raincole »

lxgr wrote: post #21
waselighis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our writing, our code, our artwork... Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game. It would be hypocritical to think that Google is wrong and OpenAI is not.

But clearly everything generated by an AI isn’t automatically in the public domain. That would be a trivial way of copyright laundering. "Sorry, while this looks like a bit for bit copy of a popular Hollywood movie, it was actually entirely dreamt up by our new, sophisticated, definitely AI-using identity function."

Uh, I think there is some confusion here.

If I plagiarize a Hollywood movie, then I explicitly "give up" my copyright by "releasing" it to the public domain, it doesn't affect the movie at all. AI or not is irrelevant.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#37

Post by fauigerzigerk »

cornholio wrote: post #24
bko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this sentiment. For some cases sure, if it repurposes your code that ignores the license fine. But it's rarely wholesale copying. It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. As for the majority of content written on the internet through reddit or some social media, what's the harm in ingesting that? It's an incredibly useful tool that will add huge value to everyone. It's relativ…

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

I don't think anyone would argue that an AI has fair use rights as a person, but corporations do.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#38

Post by chatmasta »

ankit219 wrote: post #26
sp332 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has already denied this. https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/29/23662621/google-bard-chat... (For whatever that's worth.)

They are a public company so they cannot lie so openly right? Usually you see categorial denies. Here the statement is in no way categorical at all. > But Google is firmly and clearly denying the data was used: “Bard is not trained on any data from ShareGPT or ChatGPT,” spokesperson Chris Pappas tells The Verge

Normally I would suspect this could be due to a misunderstanding from the ShareGPT author who could have misinterpreted a bunch of traffic from Googlebot as Google scraping it for Bard training data.

But there is a Google engineer who says he resigned because of it.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#39

Post by mdorazio »

cornholio wrote: post #24
bko wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this sentiment. For some cases sure, if it repurposes your code that ignores the license fine. But it's rarely wholesale copying. It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. As for the majority of content written on the internet through reddit or some social media, what's the harm in ingesting that? It's an incredibly useful tool that will add huge value to everyone. It's relativ…

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

> It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned - the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data.

Can you point to a legal case that confirms this? Because it’s not at all clear that this is true from a legal standpoint. “X would not exist without Y” is not a sufficient test for derivative works - it’s far more nuanced.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#40

Post by anonyfox »

WoodenChair wrote: post #32
anonyfox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am strongly in favor of eliminating copyright completely everywhere, soooo I am pretty fine with that. The other direction should be more enforce-able: stuff derived from open data must also be made open again, like the GPL but for data (and therefore ML stuff).

Right but in a world where copyright does exist we arguably have the worst of both worlds. Small players are not protected at all from scraping and big players are leveraging all of their work and have the legal resources to form a moat.

sure, so instead of build even higher walled gardens, let all data be free for everyone :-)
Post reply on HN