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

111–120 of 231 posts

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

#111

Post by cool_dude85 »

H8crilA wrote: post #86
Levitz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You don’t get to make information publicly available. But not publicly available. But we do? Open sourcing something with caveats is common. This code is public BUT not for commercial use. This code is public BUT you must display attribution etc. Sure, blogposts are unlicensed (that I know) but the idea of something publicly available being held to restrictions is nothing new.

Do you allow commercial employees to read the code and incorporate knowledge obtained from the code into their brains?

Show me where ChatGPT's brain is and your comparison will become relevant.

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

#112

Post by crazygringo »

chasing wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

> I do get to decide what happens with it.

No. Both legally and practically, you absolutely do not.

The only thing copyright law gives you is an exclusive right to sell it for a limited period of time, as a whole in its original form or similar -- and to transfer that right.

Regardless of your desires, anyone can reuse it under the conditions of fair use. They can copy parts of it for parody purposes. If they're not selling anything or taking away from your sales*, they can reproduce it verbatim for private purposes. And even if they are selling something, they can summarize it, quote from it, rephrase it, and so forth.

And you don't actually get to decide any of that.

* Edit: added "or..."

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

#113

Post by sebzim4500 »

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…

>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 copyright, make sure you violate all of them at the same time. They'll just decide that you're an act of god and not covered under earthly laws.

I don't think this is relevant. If OpenAI had trained a model on just one copyrighter holder's content it would likely not be different legally, even if the model would perform much worse.

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

#114

Post by littlestymaar »

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…

> People didn't need consent to having their data be used, there was an implicit assumption the moment the data was published to the public, like on reddit or youtube.

The same argument could be used to defend ubiquitous face recognition in the street though (“when going to the street, there's an implicit assumption that your presence in this place was public”) but I'd really like if we could not have that…

There's a case to be made that corporation gathering data and training artificial intelligence don't need to have the same right as people: when I go to the street or publish something on Reddit, I'm implicitly allowing other people to read my comments, but not corporations to monetize it. (GDPR and the likes already makes this kind of distinctions for personal information by the way, so we can totally extend it to any kind of online activity).

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

#115

Post by judge2020 »

supermatt wrote: post #101
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.

One individual right is the right to sign away other rights in exchange for products and services.

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

#116

Post by intotheabyss »

replwoacause wrote: post #6

A tangential question...but does anyone know what software is used to generate legal documents that look like the PDF linked in the article? I’ve played with LaTeX templates a bit, but I seriously doubt law firms are futzing around with LaTeX for documents as complex as this. They must have some software that produces this formatting.

Also tangential, but would it be ironic if portions of the legal documents were written by ChatGPT?

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

#117

Post by dsaavy »

blueridge wrote: post #67
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…

One thing I've been thinking about: it's only a matter of time before your friends load an AI assistant on their phone, and it devours every text message you have ever sent to that person, every photo you've shared together, every record of an in-person meeting. This makes me really uncomfortable.

We're already on the way: https://www.rewind.ai/

Not on the phone yet, but on a Mac which could include iMessages.

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

#118

Post by barathr »

jbarrow wrote: post #54
barathr wrote: post #32

Rather than there being lawsuit after lawsuit of this sort, we wrote an op-ed this morning that says there should be a simple, compulsory licensing fee that AI companies pay to the public -- something we called the AI Dividend: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/29/ai-pay-ame...

The order of magnitude of suggested pricing is really interesting: $0.001/word is significantly more expensive than, say, OpenAI's pricing of GPT-3.5-turbo ($0.002/1k tokens, ~750 words, so ~$0.000003/word, assuming I got my zeros correct). So this would increase the cost of running GPT-3 by about 300x. In terms of implementation, I wonder about a few things: Do models trained on more data have to pay more? LLaMA was…

Yeah, the idea is that it's much more expensive than current OpenAI pricing but much less expensive than what even a low-end marketing copy writer would charge per word. Its side effect would be to push such tools towards more valuable uses.

The idea is to keep it simple, so it wouldn't be based upon the specifics of training, just whether or not it used public data. Anything else would require companies to divulge trade secrets and that won't fly. And words are defined here as, well, words -- English words. There'd be a separate fee per pixel/voxel, and then a catchall for non-language/non-image models.

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

#119

Post by spaceman_2020 »

chasing wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

If I read your blog and used its data along with my own knowledge to create a course, would that be plagiarism or copyright violation?

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

#120

Post by prng2021 »

rpdillon wrote: post #62
prng2021 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get your point. Whether you use copyrighted material in commercial context or not always matters. That’s one of the most important aspects of different open source licenses.

This is not true for copyright law (the 4-factor test[0]) or for OSI licenses (they almost universally place no restrictions on commercial use). The only exception that comes to mind right now is the Creative Commons NC, which is generally recognized as being unsuitable for software[1]. [0]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ [1]: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm.…

Thanks you’re right. I was thinking about the license changes Elastic made to stop cloud providers from redistributing their products as a managed service.
Post reply on HN