OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers

Post by mitthrowaway2 » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 4:32 AM UTC

richardw wrote: post #80

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy seems to be made every time this comes up on HN, but I don't think it really holds water. First of all, when a human artist learns from another, it's inherently a level playing field for competition; the junior and senior are both human, neither are going to be 1,000,000x more productive as the other. So the senior artist really doesn't have that much to worry about. And the senior artist recognizes that…

Surely all this applies to code and the written word in general? People allowed (and encouraged) read access to websites so Google would index and link. Now Google et al summarise and even generate. All of that is built on our collective output. Surely everyone deserves a cut? The free sharing licenses that were added to repos didn’t account for LLM’s, so we should revisit it so all creators get their dues, not just…

Post by stonogo » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 4:33 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #16

toddmorey wrote: post #6

No way OpenAI will ever “good citizen” this. Tools to opt out of training sets will only come if they are legally compelled. Governments will have to make respecting some sort of training preference header on public content mandatory I think. The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone exclu…

> The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone excluding content from their training data. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in…

Post by 2muchcoffeeman » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 4:39 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #68

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. OpenAI and I guess every other AI company are for-profit. The only change they are motivated by is their bank balances. If this were a less useful tool they’d still be motivated to ignore laws and exploit others.

Hard to say what motivates them, from the outside looking in. There have been signs of cultlike behavior before, such as the way the rank and file instantly lined up behind Altman when he was fired. You don't see that at Boeing or Microsoft. Obviously it's a highly-commercial endeavor, which is why they are trying so hard to back away from the whole non-profit concept. But that's largely orthogonal to the question of…

Post by amiantos » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 4:54 AM UTC

soared wrote: post #74

munchler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. You can use copyrighted material all day long without a license or penalty. In particular, anyone is allowed to learn from copyrighted material by reading, hearing, or seeing it. Copyright is intended to prevent everyone from copying a person's work. That's a very different thing.

There is an argument to be made that ChatGPT mildly rewording/misquoting info directly from my blog is copying.

Post by Obscurity4340 » Thu, Jan 16, 2025, 4:57 AM UTC

nicbou wrote: post #76

dylan604 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that photographers have to independently submit each piece of work they wanted excluded along with detailed descriptions just shows how much they DONT want anyone excluding content from their training data. That's bloody brilliant. If you don't want us to scrape your content, please send us your content with all of the training data already provided so we will know not to scrape it if we come across it in…

The tech industry’s understanding of consent is terrifying.