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

311–320 of 327 posts

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#311

Post by __loam »

zellator wrote: post #223
bko wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If it helps people it should be good. Why bother posting something on the public web if not to help people. Sure a large org is receiving some ancillary benefit, but do you feel the same hostility for people working at [large corp] using what you worked on to help them at work? I honestly don't understand the hostility towards llms using public data

There is no such thing as 'public data'. There is public domain, but data always belongs to someone if not expressed otherwise.

Huge point ignored by AI bros is that seeing data publicly isn't license top do whatever you want with that data.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#312

Post by __loam »

andybak wrote: post #253
gumballindie wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Depends who's reality 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

> On a trivial level this is correct as words mean what we collectively decide they mean.

You are a douchebag lol

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#313

Post by __loam »

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 we need to put this argument in terms of consent and actual harms caused. Human artists are generally down for other human artists to learn from their art and use their stuff as a reference for the purpose of learning, because the next artist generally will have their own style from their own quirks in muscle memory, skill, experience, etc. That contributes meaningfully to Art and keeps the field alive by allowing new artists to enter the field.

AI training is basically only extractive and has the potential to severely disrupt the actual field that made the AI systems possible at all. It's a much more mechanical process that the human interaction of studying a master. It doesn't develop any human skills.

Even if the processes were the same (and I don't think they are, as someone who has actually done computational psychology research), I would still think the AI companies are doing something they know is harmful to actual creative people that generate real value.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#314

Post by morkalork »

muttled wrote: post #307
LinuxBender wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google have numerous robots that do not say Googlebot in the user-agent. They look just like Android cell phones. That is how they spot malicious sites or sites that are trying to game SEO or what-not. They are not within published CIDR blocks for Google and appear to just use wireless networks.

I'm picturing Google Street View cars driving around with a box of Pixels in the back, connecting to open WiFi and trying sites and that's why Google can now narrow down your location from what SSIDs are available.

Speaking of rolling around with box of android devices:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/03/berlin-ar...

Also, I would've sworn that happened circa 2015 and not 2020. The passing of time for the last few years has such a muddled feeling.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#315

Post by thenonsequitur »

edgyquant wrote: post #303
thenonsequitur wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't want to engage in the argument, that's on you. I don't think ChatGPT not being a human makes any difference and I think the onus is on you to explain why it should.

No the onus is not on the person thinking laws written for humans apply only to humans. That doesn’t make any sense.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. Please re-read the comments/replies up to this point and you'll see no mention of laws anywhere. That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether AI consumers of publicly accessible content should be required to pay for that content when human consumers should not.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#316

Post by terrytanys »

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 that's where references is important. We do more to the world by giving credits, I think it is the same for computer?

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#317

Post by terrytanys »

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 think what you are doing is great. I would say current way of ChatGPT isn't ideal. Harvesting the data without giving credits. The tech now is great but I believe there is a way for all to WINs.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#318

Post by terrytanys »

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.

I would put it a little differently.

You can actually copy all the book but the things is you can't publish it as your own book after you copied. Because obviously it is not your work.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#319

Post by terrytanys »

ripvanwinkle wrote: post #33
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

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…

I like your pov and I pretty much think the same. Copy for learning is different from copy and publish as your own.

Re: GPTBot – OpenAI’s Web Crawler

#320

Post by terrytanys »

p-e-w wrote: post #21
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

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

It is not learning, it is about publishing.
Post reply on HN