Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI • Hacker News Board

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#91

Post by ivalm » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

gumballindie wrote: post #51

supermatt wrote: post #43

Not to be confused with gpt4all https://github.com/nomic-ai/gpt4all which is a "free" GPT LLM. It seems this gpt4free was basically hijacking 3rd parties services that use GPT-4, bypassing the official OpenAI APIs in order to avoid paying for inference. Of course, that means that the hijacked 3rd parties are the ones footing the bill... I'm not surprised they have been issued a takedown notice.

> Of course, that means that the hijacked 3rd parties are the ones footing the bill... A bit like we are footing the bill for openai's training data.

They are providing a service, we pay for it, and they reinvest in improving the service. That’s the basic business practice.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#92

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

selfmodruntime wrote: post #37

conradev wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Releasing code to use undocumented APIs is speech, and is regulated as such You have to run the code to violate the terms of use, which is primarily used to bar you from the service for misusing it.

Time and time again. You are protected in your speech from the government . Commercial law does and will still apply. Arbitrary company decisions happen all the time, and GitHub makes it clear that they won’t refrain from deleting repos for whatever reason.

[deleted]

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#93

Post by Veen » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #84

Veen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In exactly what respect is it illegal. Keeping in mind that "not complying with a corporation's policies" is not the same as breaking the law.

> Keeping in mind that "not complying with a corporation's policies" is not the same as breaking the law. Actually, the law says that the Terms of Service is a legally-binding contract unless you can prove any provision is legally considered unconscionable. However, if that happens, all provisions except that provision still bind. It is illegal to break a legally-binding contract, and you can be sued or taken to arbi…

I'm assuming the users of Gpt4free haven't signed up to OpenAI's terms and conditions, even if they do contain language prohibiting use of these private APIs. A corporation can't unilaterally impose their TOS on the entire population (or, at least, one would hope they can't).

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#94

Post by djbusby » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:46 PM UTC

leothecool wrote: post #72

chii wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still trespassing if the private property owner did not invite you in, even if there wasn't a locked door.

Is it still trespassing if you ask to be let in, and the butler lets you in when he's not supposed to?

Yep.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#95

Post by s17n » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:47 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #71

numlock86 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of "private API" is the one you don't understand? We could elaborate.

I wasn't aware companies could, by fiat, declare certain publicly available endpoints private, thereby compelling everyone by force of law to pretend they don't exist.

They can. Now you know.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#96

Post by RoyGBivCap » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

mden wrote: post #63

withinrafael wrote: post #56

Are they really private APIs if they are accessible to the public in some form that can be reverse engineered?

Is the gas in the car you parked publicly really yours ("private") if there is a way to siphon it out? Just because there is a way to obtain a resource doesn't make it yours automatically..

No real world analogy applies when the service is publicly accessible via the internet.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#97

Post by bee_rider » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #90

selfmodruntime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time and time again. You are protected in your speech from the government . Commercial law does and will still apply. Arbitrary company decisions happen all the time, and GitHub makes it clear that they won’t refrain from deleting repos for whatever reason.

Not sure if that distinction applies here. I understand that the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from a company refusing to publish what you've said - that makes sense. But this is a case of a company attempting to use commercial law (created by the government) to cause someone else to stop their speech. That seems like a simple violation of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, o…

In this case, it is really GitHub’s company policy which is being applied, right? They aren’t required to host anything in general, and they have a policy of taking down repos based on their interpretation of the DMCA, or some similar law (which might be a misinterpretation).

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#98

Post by minhazm » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:50 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #77

cardosof wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone I didn't grant access broke (in a very smart way) into my house, turned on the lights for a minute and then left, I'd still be pissed and would call it illegal.

The situations aren't really comparable. We're talking about sending a request from a computer to a publicly available API endpoint that Open AI would rather you didn't, and then using the data that endpoint sends in response. (Somewhat tangential, the "networks as a 3D space you travel around in with locations you visit" analogy does more harm than good. It's not what's happening and it results in muddled thinking.)

Something being accessible does not mean you're authorized to access it. Someones house being unlocked doesn't mean it's okay for you to enter. Authorization is the key part here and you likely can be convicted under the CFAA[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#99

Post by dubcanada » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

ivalm wrote: post #91

gumballindie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, that means that the hijacked 3rd parties are the ones footing the bill... A bit like we are footing the bill for openai's training data.

They are providing a service, we pay for it, and they reinvest in improving the service. That’s the basic business practice.

I think you missed the memo of the comment.

They were referring to the fact that everything ChatGPT is built on is other peoples work. Beyond the actual building of the model details, there is nothing that ChatGPT owns. All the content they use to train, all of the art they use to train. Everything is stolen/used without permission. Obviously there is more to it than that, because you published it on the internet. But that's a different topic.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#100

Post by gjsman-1000 » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #93

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keeping in mind that "not complying with a corporation's policies" is not the same as breaking the law. Actually, the law says that the Terms of Service is a legally-binding contract unless you can prove any provision is legally considered unconscionable. However, if that happens, all provisions except that provision still bind. It is illegal to break a legally-binding contract, and you can be sued or taken to arbi…

I'm assuming the users of Gpt4free haven't signed up to OpenAI's terms and conditions, even if they do contain language prohibiting use of these private APIs. A corporation can't unilaterally impose their TOS on the entire population (or, at least, one would hope they can't).

In that case though, let's say OpenAI decided to enforce their Terms of Use by potentially suing. The defendant would likely have to show, whether he likes it or not, that he never once signed up for ChatGPT, never once signed up for the official OpenAI API, and managed to perfectly reverse-engineer the API from the outside. Seems unlikely to me.

But then of course... CFAA and DMCA. The DMCA in particular, for example, doesn't consider the strength of the lock in the criminality. DVDs can be cracked with 7 lines of Perl since 2001, but it's still a DMCA violation.