Why not sue for 30 billion instead if you are to go full stupid on the price
Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
131–140 of 231 posts
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#132We talk to a lot of companies and many want to start using generative AI but are afraid of litigation. As long as it is not clear on which data a given model has been trained and that it is explicitly licensed permissively by the owner you are not sure what can happen.
We are actually working on a tool to create billion-size free-to-use Creative Commons image datasets and prepare them for training models like Stable Diffusion. There is a blogpost about it here: https://blog.ml6.eu/ai-image-generation-without-copyright-in...
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Like with everything in law, "intent" is paramount. Obviously it's not the trainer's, nor the end-user's goal to reproduce training set data verbatim; quite contrary, overfitting as such is undesirable.
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Would you say reading a book to my kids before bed is illegal?
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#135A 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?
If they do, hopefully they didn't allow it to cite non-existent cases https://www.reuters.com/legal/new-york-lawyers-sanctioned-us...
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Europ…
Stables became gas stations. Nintendo used to be a toymaker. Businesses change and adapt. Workers too — but people often don’t like change, so many choose to stay behind. Should we cater to them? I used to do a lot of work which is now mostly automated. Things like sysadmin work, spinning up instances and configuring them manually, maintaining them. I reconverted and learned terraform, aws etc when it became popular.…
> Should I have gotten help from the government to instead stick to old style sysadmin work?
I don't think anyone beyond a few marginal voices are calling for a ban on job automation. What they seem to prefer is that, if they are to be automated out of a job, they should be compensated for their copyrighted works having been used in the process of doing so.
Regardless, at the very least people who are being automated should get some government support. Not everyone can easily retrain.
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#137I 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…
Anyone who reads your blog is "ingesting content" from it. That is presumably the purpose of your blog in the first place. Whether that content is used to train a human mind or an artificial one is probably not up to you as the author.
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#138Fishing expedition. Will probably get thrown out because no particular injury can be enunciated. OpenAI scraped HN as well, and I don't consider my HN posts private because anyone can come here and read them, including artificial intelligences.
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#139Rather 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...
Can't wait for the deluge of AI generated content dumped en masse on the internet purely to harvest "AI Dividends".
The dividend isn't paid to generated content but for generated content -- so generating content (using say ChatGPT) means you're paying into the AI Dividend fund not receiving money from it.
Re: Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations'
#140Earlier 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.
> 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…
You are claiming that piracy is legal.