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

Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 231 posts

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#101

Post by supermatt »

knaik94 wrote: post #35

>For the 16 plaintiffs, the complaint indicates that they used ChatGPT, as well as other internet services like Reddit, and expected that their digital interactions would not be incorporated into an AI model. I don't expect this lawsuit to lead anywhere. But if it does, I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding. The recent ruling regarding web scraping makes the case against Ope…

> I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding

I hope it leads to more people realizing that a TOS doesnt override their individual rights and that the legal system works to support them.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#102

Post by oblio »

JustBreath wrote: post #75
knaik94 wrote: post #35

>For the 16 plaintiffs, the complaint indicates that they used ChatGPT, as well as other internet services like Reddit, and expected that their digital interactions would not be incorporated into an AI model. I don't expect this lawsuit to lead anywhere. But if it does, I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding. The recent ruling regarding web scraping makes the case against Ope…

> Plaintiff ... is concerned that Defendants have taken her skills and expertise, as reflected in [their] online contributions, and incorporated it into Products that could someday result in [their] professional obsolescence ... It's been a bit surreal seeing modern day Luddites come out of the wood works basically coming up with any ethical/legal argument they can that is a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't want…

As far as I remember Luddites were smart and not against all technology, they were just protecting their jobs. And they were ultimately right.

Why? Except for the longshoremen in the US getting compensation and an early retirement due to the introduction of containers, I know of exactly 0 (ZERO!) mass professional reconversions after a technological revolution.

Look at deindustrialization in the US, UK, Western Europe.

When this happens, the affected people are basically thrown in the trash heap for the rest of their lives.

Frequently their kids and grandkids, too.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#103

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

pessimizer wrote: post #81
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not speak out because copyright is farcical nonsense that fetishizes the profit motive at the expense of humanity.

That's why copyright violation should be brutally cracked down on when the copyrights of Microsoft are violated, and lawsuits against Microsoft for intentional and widespread copyright violation should be laughed off. Because capitalism is bad. edit: corporate LLMs have pulled the "one death is a tragedy, ten thousand deaths are a statistic" ploy off fully. If you want people to question whether you're even violating…

Primacy of capital is literally the culprit of the inequality you're complaining about, and the reason you cannot win short of reorganizing society.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#104

Post by mrtranscendence »

ben_w wrote: post #96
andsoitis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the economics of (non-symbolic) AI. To work, it needs humans to create stuff for free. Putting it more bluntly, it is somewhere between a parasite and a slave driver.

It doesn't require humans to work for free — while that's been a common default MO since everyone looked at Google making a search index and thinking to themselves "if they're doing it surely do can we", there are data sets made by paying people.

There are such datasets, and AI companies absolutely pay to have data curated. But I suspect it would be just unimaginably expensive to create a dataset from scratch with enough tokens to feed a model with hundreds of billions of parameters, all the while paying every participant fairly.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#105

Post by ben_w »

samstave wrote: post #93
paddw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're fishing.

Likely hoping for whatever settlement they can squeeze out of OpenAI as the first such suit against them... They picked 3B hoping to get several million...

If it genuinely makes them redundant and unemployable, a few million each seems "fair" in certain ways.

But that is a moral point, not a legal one; IANAL and can't say anything valuable about the legal merits.

Ideally AI makes us all redundant and the money stops mattering anything like as much, similar to how owning land stopped mattering anything like as much when the industrial revolution happened.

Regardless, I think this is a policy question rather than a legal question, even if this fight happens to be in a court.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#106

Post by cmrdporcupine »

scarface_74 wrote: post #51
chasing wrote: post #44

I mean, it ingested all of the content from my blog. Without my permission. It's not a major part of their corpus of data, but still -- I wasn't asked and I don't really care to donate work to large corporations like that. So the technology is cool, but I'm firmly of the stance that they cut corners and trampled peoples' rights to get a product out the door. I wouldn't be entirely unhappy if this iteration of these p…

You don’t get to make information publicly available. But not publicly available. If you want your blog to be restricted, put it behind a login

Another day, another person on HN showing us how they don't understand the difference between Public Domain and Open Source or Copyleft etc.

And regardless -- the problem now is that expectations of how content can be consumed are now fundamentally violated by automation of content ingestion. People put stuff up on the Internet with the expectation of its consumption by human minds, which have inherent limitations on the speed and scale on which they can learn from and reproduce things, and those humans are also legally liable, socially/ethically obligated, etc.

Now we have machines which skirt the limits of legality, and are able to do so on massive scale and without responsibility to society as a whole.

Different game now.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#107

Post by judge2020 »

koheripbal wrote: post #47
knaik94 wrote: post #35

>For the 16 plaintiffs, the complaint indicates that they used ChatGPT, as well as other internet services like Reddit, and expected that their digital interactions would not be incorporated into an AI model. I don't expect this lawsuit to lead anywhere. But if it does, I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding. The recent ruling regarding web scraping makes the case against Ope…

Article titles which specify the plaintiff classroom amount are a good indicator of poor journalism. You can usually disregard such articles as you can expect biased/incomplete reporting. Lawsuit claim amounts have zero bearing on reality. They must be specified in any classroom, but lawyers just always specify massive amounts without justification. Any reporting on this amount indicates ignorance in the system or in…

Also note that the damages typically can't be adjusted up, only down.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#108

Post by BlueTemplar »

seaerkin wrote: post #83

Do we think this is related to media platforms seemingly walling themselves off? Requiring accounts to view content, removing API access. It seems if they can silo data off and make it difficult to access at a large scale, then they are the gatekeeper of the data and can control usage and pricing.

No, this always happens with platforms once they feel they have attracted enough users : for instance it happened with Twitter in 2013, or see also what happened to XMPP after Google and Facebook have adopted it, or Reddit going closed source in 2017...

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#109

Post by mrtranscendence »

pessimizer wrote: post #59
data-ottawa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.

> I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, Whoever told you that is lying to you. You are not legally allowed to personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all you want, any more than you're allowed to personally memorize, write down copyrighted works, and distribute them as much as you want. All piracy is a process of computer-assisted remembering and reciting.

Well, you could memorize and recite copyrighted works all you want, as long as you're doing it in an empty room without anyone listening.

Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'

#110

Post by myself248 »

6bb32646d83d wrote: post #72
chasing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I do. I own the work I create, even if it's publicly available. I do get to decide what happens with it.

Anyone can read your blog and then post their own blog post using knowledge they learned while reading yours. ChatGPT "learned" from your blog that same way

Anthropomorphizing that it "learned" is disingenuous and I expect better from the HN crowd.

If ChatGPT regurgitates verbatim or nearly verbatim, something it slurped up from OP's blog, is that not plagiarism? Where do you draw the line? Where would a reasonable person draw the line?

Post reply on HN