151–160 of 231 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Europ…
>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…
Regardless of access rights to the data, I've yet to read a compelling argument why LLMs are even derivative works. You can't identify your Reddit comment in a ChatGPT conversation. How is it any different than a human learning English by reading Reddit? That human wouldn't be violating copyright every time they said a phrase that was repeated by hundreds of Redditors. My favorite LLM analogy so far is the "lossy jpe…
Earlier 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…
But as the corollary to that, I know of zero successfully stopped technological revolutions. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, and there is no way to stop progress, aside from a one-world authoritarian government that forcibly stops as much of it as they can. But even that would only be marginally effective. Progress would eventually resume.
That's the real flaw in Luddite thinking -- you can destroy the machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lawsuit is far more nuanced than you're letting on. There are several aspects that come into play- * Was it published publicly? This is basically defined in the courts as "if you make an unauthenticated web request does the data return?". This is where scraping comes in- if you make the data available without authentication you can't enforce your TOS, because you can't validate that people actually even accepted…
I agree that there is additional nuance, but so far public data scraping has very clearly been ruled as legal. It's possible that at the time of scraping, copyrighted data was incorporated into the training data because it hadn't been taken down by the host platform yet. But in my opinion, the core idea proposed by the suit that private data was used intentionally, is not true. The GPT4 browsing plugin is equivalent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you allow commercial employees to read the code and incorporate knowledge obtained from the code into their brains?
This is a fantastic point. I can legally go pick up any strictly copyrighted book at a store and read parts of it for free which I will then have learnt and have in my brain to share with to anyone else. If I happen to have a superintelligent brain I can potentially gain a lot more and make a lot more inferences from this one outing and consequently add a lot of value to others I share my info to. But telling me it i…
What protects particular solutions is patents. For example if someone were to obtain a patent for computing GCD of large integers the usual fast way, well then everyone else would have to use a different solution.
This analogy to someone reading a book, perhaps peppered with lots of legalese to the point of being hardly recognizable, will definitely be used in courts at some point. And I can't see how it wouldn't stand as a valid argument.
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…
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.
> 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…
It isn't even turned off by default. Many sites just give you an "i accept" button or even if you want to manage the preferences, the "accept all choices" button is where the "confirm my choices" should be.
Bigger companies will just append this to their TOS and push it down the customer's throat. That if MS doesn't settle out of court and the case gets thrown together with any major oppositon to the data mining