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
If I learn something from your StackOverflow answers, do you expect me to share a percentage of my future salary with you?
GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
251–260 of 327 posts
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just a win-win situation, you're using their services for free because it helps you, they use your interaction to improve the model; the model is still free to use.
It would be a win-win if the company promised that they'll keep the AI as it is, and as free as it is, as long as the company functions. Then they would take something, give something, and we could discuss if what we get outweighs what they took. But the street is one-way, and it's the company that has the upper hand. The company can (and does) retract access to the AI, but they themselves keep what they took. If in…
Many good things don’t last forever. If they go away that doesn’t invalidate the experiences you had.
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you steal NBC's prerelease movie then that's theft. No. Advocates of expanded IP law have attempted to spread the idea that copyright infringement is "theft" as it adds emotional weight to their arguments. "You wouldn't download a car" etc. Same for the use of the word "piracy" - borrow an emotionally laden term from another context and hope nobody notices the sleight of hand. And it's important that we reject t…
> And it's important that we reject this definition because it distorts the reality of the situation. Depends who's reality. A content creator's reality is that their content is indeed stolen and monetised by someone without permission. "Advocates of expanded IP law" do appear to be in the right, at least by law. Copying and distributing digital products is treated more or less as theft, particularly when done at sca…
On a trivial level this is correct as words mean what we collectively decide they mean.
However I am making the point that a) the meaning has been changed and b) it has changed in a way that is deceptive and masks a useful fact about the world
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#254Nice of them to respect crawling after they've already trained their model. Presumably these headers don't affect any pages they've already crawled to train GPT(?)
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#255Nice of them to respect crawling after they've already trained their model. Presumably these headers don't affect any pages they've already crawled to train GPT(?)
It’s so now they can lobby for anti scraping regulation and hamper any possible catch-up.
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
The legal cases don't "mean anything" because AI training is /legal/, not because courts are "corrupt". If anything is transformative, an AI that doesn't memorize its input is.
It doesnt memorize anything. It just needs gazillion parameters that approach the size of the training set to finesse its conversational accent.
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dumb question but how would they know the content is different unless they're also crawling incognito and comparing the results?
Keeping you honest with incognito crawling is something they have to do anyway, to catch various tricks and scams - malware served up to users, etc.
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright laws do in fact (or have in fact) acted retroactively.
When? Not doubting, just curious about scope and type of scenarios where it's happened.
There's also copyright reversion, which is a related new provision that applied to older copyrighted works. Quoting from an article I just pulled up
"...the 1976 Act created a new right allowing authors and their heirs to terminate a prior grant of copyright, the Act also set forth specific steps concerning the timing and contents of the termination notice that must be served in order to effectuate termination. The termination of a grant may be effective “at any time during a period of five years beginning of the end of 56 years from the date the copyright was originally secured”..."
But this is a red herring because the fact a model has been trained in the past doesn't mean a copyright lawsuit is "retroactive". The infringement would presumably be occuring anew every day you make it available on your web site.
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the same token (no pun intended), locking up such data in a closed (in many senses) LLM wouldn’t be a desirable outcome?
How does an LLM learning from an open dataset lock it up?
Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler
#260Nice of them to respect crawling after they've already trained their model. Presumably these headers don't affect any pages they've already crawled to train GPT(?)
Their papers say they were using Common Crawl for crawling. If you didn't want your pages in Common Crawl (eg. Twitter didn't) for use in many downstream analyses or uses beyond just OA, you could already have said so in your robots.txt.