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

GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

platform.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 327 posts

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#101

Post by gfedtbyby »

caesil wrote: post #45
ripvanwinkle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every response so far is no i.e. the hobby website doesn't merit any compensation. A contrarian take to support the original commenter is that if the site owner had ads, i probably got him or her some increment in site visits and helped in some small way with monetization, site ranking and boosted his / her public persona, credibility. When GPT bot visits, none of that happens. Much worse - people who might have visi…

The LinkedIn case has already established the legality of scraping, so this argument falls flat too.

I don't think it's so much about legality rather than maintaining incentives (both financial and immaterial) for people to publish high-qualicontent that's available publicly.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#102

Post by p-e-w »

moonchrome wrote: post #93
p-e-w wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal cases don't mean anything. The rule of law has all but disappeared from the corporate world. The idea that courts or regulators will be able to control AI is laughable. They are too corrupt, and they are way too slow.

If you think copyright lawyers and the entertainment industry is going to let some AI upstarts launder their IP without a fight you aren't paying attention.

> AI upstarts

You mean corporations that wield more power than most governments, and have revenues equivalent to the GDP of entire countries?

If Universal or 20th Century Fox were to ever become a serious obstacle, Google and Microsoft are simply going to buy them. This isn't the early 2000s anymore. The power balance has shifted dramatically.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#103

Post by tick_tock_tick »

ricardo81 wrote: post #49
ketzo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint (not just to be annoying — I think you pose a very interesting unanswered question): If I read your hobby website about photography and use it to take 1% better pictures, do I owe you 1% of what my clients pay me? I think that probably most people would say no, assuming you could even determine that 1% in a way that both parties agreed was fair. I think generally, we have an understanding that some stuff…

Interesting point though I'd go with another analogy. You can go to a library to borrow a book, but you can't go to the library and copy all the books for your own use.

?? You can it would take a long time but you could.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#104

Post by literalAardvark »

agnosticmantis wrote: post #53

What’s the incentive for people to allow the crawler at all? Unlike search engines, chatgpt doesn’t cite references at all (last I tried) or even if it does it often makes up nonexistent references. And because it rephrases the content, there’s often no way to prove they got the material from a particular source, so harder to litigate plagiarism too. How would contributing to the weights of this LLM help content crea…

Chatgpt 4 provides pretty good citations on request.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#105

Post by chongli »

Google234 wrote: post #55
ricardo81 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point though I'd go with another analogy. You can go to a library to borrow a book, but you can't go to the library and copy all the books for your own use.

If the library owned an effectively infinite copies of each book why wouldn’t they let you borrow one copy of each book?

The online library known as archive.org tried exactly this. They got sued, to no one’s surprise.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#106

Post by golol »

wg0 wrote: post #5

If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001 than shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream? EDIT: scuba diving NOT scooba diving

I find it very strange to think that you are entitled to anything in return when something views and processes content you have publicly shared.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#107

Post by tick_tock_tick »

croes wrote: post #27
p-e-w wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I learn something from your StackOverflow answers, do you expect me to share a percentage of my future salary with you?

Can you share your knowledge with millions at once? If so, then pay.

I mean yes? Answer a bunch of stackoverflow questions and you'll hit that.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#108

Post by poisonborz »

ketzo wrote: post #16
wg0 wrote: post #5

If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001 than shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream? EDIT: scuba diving NOT scooba diving

Counterpoint (not just to be annoying — I think you pose a very interesting unanswered question): If I read your hobby website about photography and use it to take 1% better pictures, do I owe you 1% of what my clients pay me? I think that probably most people would say no, assuming you could even determine that 1% in a way that both parties agreed was fair. I think generally, we have an understanding that some stuff…

I think there is a straight distinction that can be made. With humans, you can't determine if or how that information will be utilized. With any machine, you will. It's practically a copy. If it's only storing derivate information, if there is fuzziness, that's intended.

Far in the future - if ever - where we have biological grade artificial beings which you can't program, control and limit in the classical software development sense, this could be rethought.

Until then, we don't need to humanize machines.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#109

Post by hliyan »

ketzo wrote: post #16
wg0 wrote: post #5

If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001 than shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream? EDIT: scuba diving NOT scooba diving

Counterpoint (not just to be annoying — I think you pose a very interesting unanswered question): If I read your hobby website about photography and use it to take 1% better pictures, do I owe you 1% of what my clients pay me? I think that probably most people would say no, assuming you could even determine that 1% in a way that both parties agreed was fair. I think generally, we have an understanding that some stuff…

Better analogy would be: I read your hobby website and start a photography section in my Q&A website based on what I've learned from your site. That leads to a 1% increase in my revenue.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#110

Post by fakedang »

moonchrome wrote: post #93
p-e-w wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal cases don't mean anything. The rule of law has all but disappeared from the corporate world. The idea that courts or regulators will be able to control AI is laughable. They are too corrupt, and they are way too slow.

If you think copyright lawyers and the entertainment industry is going to let some AI upstarts launder their IP without a fight you aren't paying attention.

I thought the Hollywood strike was about the entertainment industry planning on using AI to substitute extras? Sorry but they're all in bed together.
Post reply on HN