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

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#231

Post by gumballindie »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #221
gumballindie wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google drives traffic to your website, and generates revenue. It also respects IP and gives credit. Ai crawlers don't. Just because content is out in the open it doesn't mean there's no license to follow when using it. If they gave credit, respected IP and drove traffic then sure.

Whilst I'm not an AI proponent, Bing cites sources in the form of sites, thus driving traffic, so that's not strictly true. Bing seems to be somewhat of a sensation currently with consumers.

I am not against ai and i am open to any ai tools that give credit or satisfy the requirements of the license of whatever they ingested. Ai is good, theft is not. So if bing plays by the rules then thats great.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#232

Post by BoorishBears »

spookie wrote: post #33
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…

If they've actually reverse engineered I see no reason in this going anywhere.

They didn't reverse engineer OpenAI's API, they reverse engineered random websites so you could spend their resources instead of your own.

That's a great reason for it to go somewhere.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#233

Post by sschueller »

numlock86 wrote: post #60
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.

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

My website is private. If you visit it I will sue you.

If someone bypasses authentication I understand but if your api is open on the public internet on purpose, you don't get to randomly declare what's private and what isn't.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#234

Post by Veen »

minhazm wrote: post #98
Veen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Again, I don't think the analogy holds—no one is entering anything. A better analogy would be someone standing outside your house and asking you to pass a book to them through the open door, which you then voluntarily do.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#235

Post by xtracto »

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.

I find it extremely sad that nowadays the EFF, FSF and ACLU are so watered down compared to the 90s (when I first read about abuses). With the wave of information and abuses that will come in the next years due to proprietary LLMs, i wish there was a new person with the drive of Stallman. Hunanity desperately NEED the new Stallmans, Lech Johansens, Russinovichs and Linuses of these new generations generations.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#236

Post by jrochkind1 »

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.

In general it's certainly true that private internet companies are not bound by the USA first ammendment in that way, and routinely "censor" speech, I agree. Including for things that they think will be bad PR for them, or will be legally risky for them. But.

> GitHub makes it clear that they won’t refrain from deleting repos for whatever reason.

What actions or speech do you think Github has taken that makes that clear?

In general, I have seen Github stick to only taking things down according to the actual DMCA law, more than most companies that take things down pretty much whenever anyone asks them to.

Github has a DMCA Takedown Policy [1], that is better than most companies. Most companies policies -- if they even transparently publish them at all, which they often don't -- go well beyond what the DMCA requires in what they will take down. Compare to eg YouTube [2], which isn't really using a DMCA process at all, doesn't really have a transparent policy at all, and does not allow you to counter-notice. Github's policy is way better than most; but maybe there are occasions where they have been known not to follow their own policy, is that what you're saying?

From what I've seen, github has actually made it much more clear than most companies that they won't just randomly take things down for arbitrary reasons, but have a clear and transparent policy based on the DMCA. But maybe there are things I don't know.

In this particular case, though, someone else pointed out to me in another part of this thread -- it's not totally clear Github is even involved. From the text on the repo, it seems possible that OpenAI contacted the repo owner directly, and the repo owner decided to change the text of the repo README to say that, and that may all that has happened? If Github had actually done a "takedown" according to their usual procedures, I think the repo wouldn't be there anymore? But it's not really clear what's going on, or even what the repo owner _claims_ is going on, unless we have more info than appears in the linked repo README. It's not currently clear that Github is involved at all.

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...

[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-yo...

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#237

Post by user3939382 »

krapp wrote: post #169
user3939382 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are protected in your speech from the government In theory. In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is that government agencies are free to send takedown requests to social media platforms for speech that disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy.

>In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is that government agencies are free to send takedown requests to social media platforms for speech that disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy. Where in the Twitter files did it show that social media platforms would be punished with jail time or violence or anything if they refused to obey the government's orders? Because unless you can demonstrate the g…

Twitter didn’t need any additional pressure beyond what’s monumentally implicit, they had an FBI spook running the other side inside Twitter.

Not to mention that the requests constituted a gross 1st amendment violation.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#238

Post by antifa »

glitchc wrote: post #173
junon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the devs behind GCC are going to be really upset when they find out people have been using it to generate binaries. This is different from paintings and novels, where the authors made them for the sole purpose of being a tool. /s

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#239

Post by glitchc »

codedokode wrote: post #220
glitchc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But ChatGPT responses are not copyrighted and cannot be copyrighted by OpenAI. They are the work of whoever asked a question, so in this case the user bypasses the protection to create its own work, not to read someone's else work.

The model is proprietary and owned by OpenAI, therefore the outputs pf a proprietary process are at minimum copyrighted by OpenAI. When you sign up, you obtain a license to use that output as prescribed by the license.

Re: Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI

#240

Post by glitchc »

junon wrote: post #228
glitchc wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is an extremely clear difference - the compiler explicitly licenses itself away from you any code it generates. Nice try though.

That's my exact point. The compiler is explicitly assigning those roghts to the iser. It's a legal contract. It's not implicit in the design of the license. Each entity's rights to ChatGPT are exclusively described in the EULA that entity signed to ontain access.
Post reply on HN