251–260 of 342 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention it's embarrassing. Google playing second banana to OpenAI.
I think Amazon was first in the (free) banana business
before: organic (south america) and regular (central ou SEA) for 69, 59.
then: both chikita's brand with regular and organic stickers (clearly the same produce, always from SEA) for 49 and 39 cents.
thats was days after the announcement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
forgive me if i have limited sympathy when a burglars house gets robbed
1. Google denies doing it, so at the very least the title should have an "allegedly". 2. Even if they did – so what? The output from ChatGPT is not copyrightable by OpenAI. In fact it is OpenAI that is training its models on copyrighted data, pictures, code from all over the internet.
Regarding point 2, I think there's nothing "wrong" with it, mainly it's funny that they don't know how to do it themselves. Provides additional evidence that Google is outgunned in this fight.
The idea of doing this is embarrassing enough for Google.
Google index the whole web, some of the documents are due to be generated by ChatGPT, there is no way around it.
1. Google denies doing it, so at the very least the title should have an "allegedly". 2. Even if they did – so what? The output from ChatGPT is not copyrightable by OpenAI. In fact it is OpenAI that is training its models on copyrighted data, pictures, code from all over the internet.
Unfortunately the original report (https://www.theinformation.com/articles/alphabets-google-and...) is hardwalled.
Anyone care to steel man the argument for why this was a good idea?
It’s interesting when we say Google did this. It’s actually and likely some people that work for Google and are on this forum did this. Knowingly, not by accident while slurping up the rest of the internet, and got paid to do it. I wonder what the engineer view on this was/is. I have to assume they ballpark know the terms of the openai data (regardless if you disagree or not). Anyone care to steel man the argument fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI Terms of service forbid training competitor models via their ML outputs (LoRa alpaca laundering is probably not allowed for commercial use).
Google has no contract with OpenAI though. They used a third party site to scrape conversations. If the outputs themselves are not copyrighted, and they never agreed to the terms of service, it should be fine, right? Albeit unethical and embarrassing.
But when OpenAI do it, it's genius?
Can't believe this is a conversation ... and I'm solid anti-Google since Google Reader.