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

ChatGPT Enterprise

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#491

Post by fxnn »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #420
fxnn wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me that discussion is always hard to grasp. When a human would learn coding autodidacticly by reading source code, and later they would write new code — then they could only do so because they read licensed code. No one would ask for the license, right? So why do we care from where LLMs learn?

> So why do we care from where LLMs learn? same difference there is between painting your own fake Caravaggio and buying a fake Caravaggio (or selling the one you made). the second one is forgery, the first one is not.

Okay if it’s about looking at one painting and fake that. However, if you train your model on billions of paintings and create arbitrary new ones from that, it’s just a statistical analysis on what paintings in general are made of.

The importance of the individual painting diminishes at this scale.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#492

Post by slikrick »

bodhi_mind wrote: post #485
Gentil wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you claiming this because they used copyrighted material as training data? If so, I think you're starting from the wrong point. All open source license comes under copyright law. It means if they violate the OSS license, the license is void and the tech/material becomes copyright protected. So yes, it would mean that it is trained on copyrighted material. > Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses…

I thought attribution is required only if you redistribute the code. That’s why saas businesses don’t need to attribute when using open source code on their backend. Maybe a similar concept could be used for training data. I’m far from an expert so this is just a thought.

ChatGPT does redistribute the code, it's essentially the same issue as someone reading proprietary sources or GPL sources on a proprietary project, because they aren't abiding by the license they are breaking the terms. there is no possibility of clean room implementations with ChatGPT

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#493

Post by gaganyaan »

sensanaty wrote: post #464
gaganyaan wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really asserting that these models aren't learning? What definition of learning are you using?

Don't know if they are, and don't really care either and I don't care to anthropomorphize circuitry to the extent that AI proponents tend to, especially. Humans and Computers are 2 wholly separate entities, and there's 0 reason for us to conflate the two. I don't care if another human looks at my code and straight up copies/pastes it, I care very much if an entity backed by a megacorp like Micro$oft does the same, en…

If you don't care, why are you confidently asserting things you're not even interested in examining? It just drowns out useful comments.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#494

Post by gaganyaan »

fxnn wrote: post #488
sensanaty wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know if they are, and don't really care either and I don't care to anthropomorphize circuitry to the extent that AI proponents tend to, especially. Humans and Computers are 2 wholly separate entities, and there's 0 reason for us to conflate the two. I don't care if another human looks at my code and straight up copies/pastes it, I care very much if an entity backed by a megacorp like Micro$oft does the same, en…

Okay, so the scale at which they sale their service is a good argument that this is different from a human learning. However, on the other hand we also have the scale at which they learn, which kind of makes every individual source line of code they learn from pretty unimportant. Learning at this scale is statistical process, and in most cases individual source snippets diminish in the aggregation of millions of othe…

It's really not different in scale. Imagine for a moment how much storage space it would take to store the sensory data that any two year old has experienced. That would absolutely dwarf the text-based world the largest of LLMs have experienced.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#495

Post by gaganyaan »

bombolo wrote: post #466
gaganyaan wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really asserting that these models aren't learning? What definition of learning are you using?

Do humans really read terabytes of C code to learn C? Humans look at a few examples and extrapolate…

Humans have experienced an amount of data that absolutely dwarfs the amount of data even the largest of LLMs have seen. And they've got billions of years of evolution to build on to boot

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#496

Post by tracker1 »

jprete wrote: post #445
joncrocks wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you look at lots of paintings, and create a new painting which is in a very similar style to an existing painting? Is that a forgery? Have you infringed on the copyright on all the paintings you looked at?

Why do people bring this up? People are not LLMs and the issues are not the same.

I'd add to this, the damage an LLM could do is much less than a human could do in terms of individual production. A person can paint so many forgeries... A machine can create many, many more. The dilusion of value from a person learning is far different than machine learning. The value extracted and diluted is night and day in terms of scale.

Not to say what will/won't happen. In practice, what I've seen doesn't scare me much in terms of what LLMs produce vs. what a person has to clean up after it's produced.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#497

Post by superfrank »

slikrick wrote: post #492
bodhi_mind wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought attribution is required only if you redistribute the code. That’s why saas businesses don’t need to attribute when using open source code on their backend. Maybe a similar concept could be used for training data. I’m far from an expert so this is just a thought.

ChatGPT does redistribute the code, it's essentially the same issue as someone reading proprietary sources or GPL sources on a proprietary project, because they aren't abiding by the license they are breaking the terms. there is no possibility of clean room implementations with ChatGPT

> ChatGPT does redistribute the code

My whole point is that I don't think that's legally true at the moment. There's enough difference in how generative AI works compared to pretty much anything before it that what ChatGPT legally does is up for debate. If a court rules that what ChatGPT does counts as redistribution then yes, I agree that they're likely violating copyright law, but AFAIK that ruling hasn't happened yet.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#498

Post by gaganyaan »

ddingus wrote: post #486
gaganyaan wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are the issues not the same? Are you privileging meat over silicon?

Yes they are. Most people will. They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for. We will see new law as this tech develops. For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so. They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equa…

Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK?

> Most people will [privilege meat]

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree that humans are likely to pass bad laws, because we are mostly just dumb, panicky dangerous animals in the end. That's different than asking an internet commentor why they're being so confident in their opinions though.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#499

Post by ddingus »

gaganyaan wrote: post #498
ddingus wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are. Most people will. They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for. We will see new law as this tech develops. For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so. They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equa…

Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK? > Most people will [privilege meat] "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree…

If we bioengineer:

Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion.

We can remedy "construct" this way:

Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now.

And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so.

These LLM entities are not beings. That's fundamental. And it's why an extremely large number of other beings are going to find your comment laughable. I did!

You are attempting to simplify things too much to be meaningful.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#500

Post by gaganyaan »

ddingus wrote: post #499
gaganyaan wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK? > Most people will [privilege meat] "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree…

If we bioengineer: Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion. We can remedy "construct" this way: Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now. And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so. These LLM entities are not bein…

Define "being". If it's so fundamental, it should be pretty easy, no?

And I'd like if this were simple. Unfortunately there's too many people throwing around over-simplifications like "They are not the same because an LLM is a construct" or "These LLM entities are not beings". If you'll excuse the comparison, it's like arguing with theists that can't reason about their ideological foundations, but can provide specious soundbites in spades.

Post reply on HN