191–200 of 250 posts
Let's arrange a donation for the creator of this Repo. This is gold and crucial for democratization of AI tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Bu…
Now that doesn't mean you can't license your work for exclusive use by humans and explicitly forbid AI training data in the license applied to your work, but you'd have to do that when you publish it, not retroactively.
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..
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.
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).
I do imagine OpenAI has something in their terms where you're not allowed to use their APIs unless you agree to their terms, which includes payment and not using other accounts than your own (fraud). So maybe that's it?
Let's arrange a donation for the creator of this Repo. This is gold and crucial for democratization of AI tools.
No it abuses security vulnerabilities in 3rd party businesses who are using OpenAI. It doesn't get you access to OpenAI's api at OpenAI's expense. It gets you access at [vulnerable 3rd party]'s expense. Bankrupting someone using OpenAI doesn't seem to achieve much in the way of democratization of AI tools, sorry.
But as for your comment, i see it rather as opportunity to make it only with Opt-in by the companies themselves. That way it will actually make it even win-win situation for them for Marketing and Ads (with lower price).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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? Sound…
I fear our views on this issue are wholly incompatible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine considering your random posts on reddit "work" and thinking people are stealing it when they train their models on your internet drivel.
So it's valueless when the original author wants it to have value and valuable when OpenAI wants it to have value? I am all for training AIs, but at least exhibit some self-consistency in your arguments!
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.
This is why Microsoft's takeover of Github (and OpenAI for that matter) is so tragic. They weren't required to take this down. It got taken down because Microsoft didn't like it. Microsoft now has their hooks in the open source community and can crush any project who does something they don't like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it abuses security vulnerabilities in 3rd party businesses who are using OpenAI. It doesn't get you access to OpenAI's api at OpenAI's expense. It gets you access at [vulnerable 3rd party]'s expense. Bankrupting someone using OpenAI doesn't seem to achieve much in the way of democratization of AI tools, sorry.
it's not bankrupting them, as the author is highly ethic (by using only "Big companies" open apis and remove the small one and the ones that ask from him to be removed). But as for your comment, i see it rather as opportunity to make it only with Opt-in by the companies themselves. That way it will actually make it even win-win situation for them for Marketing and Ads (with lower price).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incorrect and unfair statement that would not pass the test in any court of law. ChatGPT uniquely orders information in a way that gives them a competitive advantage in the marketplace. While the source information is public, the ordering of it is proprietary and a trade secret. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum to "everything is made of atoms and no one ones atoms, ergo no one owns anything."
The source information in public? Copyright isn't a thing anymore? That's news to me.