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

Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 250 posts

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#171

Post by glitchc »

conradev wrote: post #35
rwl4 wrote: post #23

This project is designed to allow people to use ChatGPT via reversed engineered private APIs. It's not surprising they went after this. Here's the project description from the README: Have you ever come across some amazing projects that you couldn't use just because you didn't have an OpenAI API key? We've got you covered! This repository offers reverse-engineered third-party APIs for GPT-4/3.5, sourced from various…

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.

If the code in any way includes private API keys, or circumvents protections on another entity's private API keys, then this is intellectual theft and punishable by the law. I'm willing to bet that without those private keys, the repo is worthless.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#172

Post by MichaelZuo »

whitepaint wrote: post #110
px43 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, so what's the problem with gpt4free then?

They're consuming real electricity and real time on servers that don't belong to them nor do they have permission to use.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#173

Post by glitchc »

junon wrote: post #62
ziml77 wrote: post #52

It's a project that lets you piggyback off of others' ChatGPT API keys without their permission? If so, then it seems like it would violate both OpenAI's ToS as well as the ToS for any site that is being used as a proxy. And is this a DMCA takedown? It's not actually specified in the readme update and I would have thought that the repo would have been hidden by now if it was one. Plus I'm not sure what they'd be clai…

I mean... I know this isn't legally the same, but OpenAI has sold a repackaged version of all of our data, too.

And any code you write is a repackaged version of the compiler. Spot the difference? Should the maker of the compiler claim ownership of your binary?

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#174

Post by glitchc »

codedokode wrote: post #46
numpad0 wrote: post #30

Looks like it was a “paywall bypass” for GPT-3.5/GPT-4 through vulnerable third parties. DMCA forbids access control circumvention, among other things, so seems like a takedown is expected.

But isn't DMCA about protecting copyrighted content? And the copyright to ChatGPT responses must belong to the one who have asked a question because ChatGPT is just a tool. Whoever is using the tool should own the copyright on replies.

Yes, and DMCA includes specific protections against breaking or circumventing locks that restrict access to copyrighted content.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#175

Post by welshwelsh »

devmor wrote: post #141
jstummbillig wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This litany is already getting old and it's just 2 month in. All intellectual property is inherently stolen. Just let it go.

That's all great until people stop providing intellectual property for free because of the chilling effects. Artists are already starting to completely paywall their content. How far do we let AI scraping and incorporation go? Just say "fuck it" until there's nothing left to scrape other than content also made by AI?

"chilling effects" usually refers to when people decide not to share things because of potential legal consequences. For example, if people stop creating or distributing AI art because they don't want to be sued by artists for using their style, that's a chilling effect. Basically the opposite of what you are describing

>Just say 'fuck it' until there's nothing left to scrape other than content also made by AI?

Sounds good to me! There will always be people making free art, and AI will make this much easier.

The thing that I think people are missing is that AI-generated content CAN be used to improve AI models. There is no requirement that the input data is created without AI.

Furthermore, AI-generated content on the internet is not random; it is curated content. Generally speaking people don't post every image they generate with Stable Diffusion, they only post the best images. If you consider engagement metrics and user feedback (upvotes etc), they can be a valuable and useful part of a training set.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#176

Post by l33t233372 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #154
heyyyouu wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

See for example, the group arrested for selling devices that allowed people to take control of their own Nintendo Switch systems[1].

Although, after digging into the story, it looks like they may have also operated an illicit app store containing cracked IPs, so that situation is a little murky.

[1] https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/04/nintendo-hacker-ga...

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#177

Post by jstummbillig »

chefandy wrote: post #136
jstummbillig wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This litany is already getting old and it's just 2 month in. All intellectual property is inherently stolen. Just let it go.

The topic's biggest cop-out. Intellectual property doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have limited-to-zero sympathy for corporate entities like Getty images that hoard IP, but our society's social contract says labor isn't free unless people donate it. We need to implement some sort of alternate compensation system before entirely disregarding IP so we don't pull the rug out from under perfectly honest independent creative…

You are right, the (potential) negative impact AI training has on what people do will only manifest in the future.

But no matter how I or anyone else feel about the car or how bad it is for the environment, or how much we dislike the noise they impose on us, it's simply not going to bring back the horse.

There just is no conceivable future. It's dead.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#178

Post by llamataboot »

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.

I think an interesting legal case could be made about publishing the code as a web page somewhere that could play around with the speech/action distinction - but I certainly don't think Microsoft is going to host ways for people to backdoor OpenAI under any circumstances - honestly I'm surprised it took an actual DMCA notice

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#179

Post by ronsor »

l33t233372 wrote: post #176
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMCA covers circumvention devices, not just directly infringing material.

See for example, the group arrested for selling devices that allowed people to take control of their own Nintendo Switch systems[1]. Although, after digging into the story, it looks like they may have also operated an illicit app store containing cracked IPs, so that situation is a little murky. [1] https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/04/nintendo-hacker-ga...

I think jailbreaking is a current exception to the DMCA (according to the copyright office's latest report). An app store full of cracked games is obviously illegal, though.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#180

Post by chefandy »

jstummbillig wrote: post #177
chefandy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic's biggest cop-out. Intellectual property doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have limited-to-zero sympathy for corporate entities like Getty images that hoard IP, but our society's social contract says labor isn't free unless people donate it. We need to implement some sort of alternate compensation system before entirely disregarding IP so we don't pull the rug out from under perfectly honest independent creative…

You are right, the (potential) negative impact AI training has on what people do will only manifest in the future. But no matter how I or anyone else feel about the car or how bad it is for the environment, or how much we dislike the noise they impose on us, it's simply not going to bring back the horse. There just is no conceivable future. It's dead.

Another cop-out. No, the horse isn't dead. This technology is at its precipice and society outside of the tech world hasn't even started to react yet let alone develop entrenched immutable norms surrounding it. A good portion of what these algorithms put out isn't even particularly commercially useful... yet. There's a lot of time to change policy, to change corporate norms, to change compensation structures, and to change perspectives. Just because you find that prospect inconvenient compared to just throwing up your hands and saying fuck it, likely because you benefit from doing so, doesn't mean that you don't have a moral obligation to reduce the harm these behaviors will result in.

Beyond that, the technology is just the catalyst. It's a tool. The problem is what people are doing with it. That's an ongoing behavior that can be changed-- not a bell you can't un-ring.

I won't claim to know what's in your head, but most people I've encountered who rebuff complex topics with idealistic platitudes don't really think the topics are that simple. They're avoiding confronting the negative consequences of a behavior they have no intention of changing to avoid damaging their moral self-image.

Post reply on HN