is openai encouraging people to reuse the "gpt" acronym for the apps built with their api? seems like a bad idea from a branding POV.
Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
151–160 of 250 posts
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#152Not 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.
Block access if you don't want them to access your data. No bills created.
However, if AI ends up being as mainstream as the average HN user is claiming, are you sure you aren't shooting yourself in the foot to not have your brand and product info not included in that data set if it replaces search engines?
Is it any different from a Google crawler? They put ads on your content on the SERPs after crawling it.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Bu…
Everything that anyone has ever built is built on the works of others. This is how we progress as a species. The entire reason why the internet is so revolutionary is that it allows for permissionless innovation.
Then OpenAI should allow us to do some permissionless innovation on their work.
Strangly enough, it's only interested in promoting permissionless innovation when it stands to profit. It plunders the commons, and gives nothing unencumbered back.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me that DMCA Takedown is an applicable legal process for that, but I guess when does that ever stop anyone these days. What specific US laws do folks think that repo (or running/using the software in that repo) might have been violating? (I agree it seems likely that it's _some_ law, I'm not challenging that just asking if anyone has a legal analysis they want to share).
It's an excellent point. DMCA is for copyright. My take (I have a background in this area but IANAL): I think they can get away with the copyright because of the name/content usage (no one of the opposite end of the request is going to question that, it seems obvious), but I think it's clear to those in the know that's not WHY they went after this one. In theory, they could probably use DCMA to go after anyone using…
DMCA covers circumvention devices, not just directly infringing material.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#155Not 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.
It's not clear to me that DMCA Takedown is an applicable legal process for that, but I guess when does that ever stop anyone these days. What specific US laws do folks think that repo (or running/using the software in that repo) might have been violating? (I agree it seems likely that it's _some_ law, I'm not challenging that just asking if anyone has a legal analysis they want to share).
Does "takedown notice" automatically equal "DMCA"? The repo itself and the parent to your comment don't mention DMCA at all.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#156Doesn't the DMCA have an exception for reverse engineering if it's for the purposes of compatibility with other programs?
Yes, but it's not that simple: What Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse Engineering? Section 1201 contains an exception for reverse engineering, as well as security research, encryption research, and the distribution of security tools, all of which may support reverse engineering. However, these exceptions are drafted very narrowly. If your research might implicate section 1201, consult a lawyer t…
There is a similar but less restrictive exemption in Europe, specifically aimed at permitting interoperability.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
On the other hand, it contains some traps that can be used to put some limits back in, such as the last lines here: (emphasis mine)
"(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program."
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not clear to me that DMCA Takedown is an applicable legal process for that, but I guess when does that ever stop anyone these days. What specific US laws do folks think that repo (or running/using the software in that repo) might have been violating? (I agree it seems likely that it's _some_ law, I'm not challenging that just asking if anyone has a legal analysis they want to share).
CFAA[0] is one that comes to mind but I also think that has different issues with what might be overly vague terminology. It at least seems more applicable to this, though I am certainly not a legal expert. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
There was a somewhat recent supreme court ruling that said just breaking some ToS is not a CFAA violation. Unless the gpt4free repo had straight up stolen credentials the CFAA shouldn't apply.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#158Doesn't the DMCA have an exception for reverse engineering if it's for the purposes of compatibility with other programs?
The bigger issue is that none of the things here is a copyright protection mechanism within the scope of the DMCA to start with, so the DMCA doesn’t even apply.
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#159Not 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.
It's not clear to me that DMCA Takedown is an applicable legal process for that, but I guess when does that ever stop anyone these days. What specific US laws do folks think that repo (or running/using the software in that repo) might have been violating? (I agree it seems likely that it's _some_ law, I'm not challenging that just asking if anyone has a legal analysis they want to share).
Fraud?
Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
#160Earlier 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.
> You are protected in your speech from the government. Commercial law
...is the government.