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

191–200 of 231 posts

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

#191

Post by 111111IIIIIII »

hospitalJail wrote: post #170
111111IIIIIII wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems people prefer power distributed by capital, rather than military might or factionalism/leaders/politics. Not that all capital is distributed by merit, plenty of people used military might or factionalism/leaders/politics to obtain disproportionate amount of capital. But if you are against the last 2 happening, I don't see what you expect a reorganization of society to accomplish since you are going to get a…

Capital primacy is maintained by the capitalist state, i.e. the monopoly on violence. This is literally military might.

I don't necessarily disagree with your later points. I do, however, disagree with giving up.

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

#192

Post by TechBro8615 »

chasing wrote: post #180
TechBro8615 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sent your content to them in response to their HTTP requests. That sure looks like affirmative consent to me.

You’re right! Just like Disney+ did when I watched Star Wars the other day. I’m excited to know Disney has consented to me posting Star Wars in its entirety free online.

Can you make ChatGPT produce the content of your blog post "in its entirety?" You can share the URL to a ChatGPT conversation, so it should be easy to prove the copyright violation by replying to me with two links: one to your blog post, and one to the ChatGPT conversation containing an unauthorized copy of it.

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

#193

Post by oblio »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #161
scrollaway wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Suppose you're a weaver. It's hard, fiddly work, and you have to get your timing and your tension just right to make quality material. Now, there are mechanised looms that can do the job faster (though the quality's not great : they could still do with some improvement, in your opinion). From this efficiency gain, who should reap the profits? Suppose you're a farmer. You've been working on your tractors for decades,…

I've answered this before. The container revolution split some of the resulting profits with those whose livelihoods were destroyed, the longshoremen.

"You build a dam that destroys 10000 homes, who should reap the profits?"

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

#194

Post by mycall »

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…

It is open knowledge that ~0% of people read any TOS. While ignorance is no defense for breaking laws or rules, ~0% is compelling in and of itself that the process is completely broken.

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

#195

Post by crazygringo »

chasing wrote: post #159
crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So you’re saying I’m right except in some narrowly carved-out situations. And I agree with you.

Nope. You said:

> I wasn't asked and I don't really care to donate work to large corporations like that... I do get to decide what happens with it.

And I said:

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

You think you get to decide whether large corporations can train on your work. I'm saying the the law suggests you very much don't get to decide that.

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

#196

Post by knaik94 »

tedivm wrote: post #174
knaik94 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you describe misrepresents how LLMs/neural networks and the math works, your analogy does not apply. There's no static data in the networks. The output of LLMs are much closer to parodies and fanfiction. In that case, you very clearly own the copyright to the new work you make.

That's weird, since my comment literally said nothing about LLMs. I was simply pointing out that making scraping legal doesn't invalidate any of the other data laws that were out there, and gave one example. You keep making the claim that because it was scraped people can do whatever they want, as scraping is legal. That is the only thing I'm arguing against, because that is a gross misinterpretation of how the case…

I see your perspective better now. The Linkedin case was specifically regarding CFAA and is relevant to the original suit against OpenAI and web scraping, but I now see you weren't discussing that. The copyright limit you mention is related to completely automated generations, it's not as clear when a human uses it. The UK assigns the copyright to the user/custodian of the AI. The neural network models can repeat data, but it requires a certain frequency, and still relies on a probabilistic output. The complication comes from the fact that there is no "copying" when training a model. Fundamentally, I think we disagree on how data use laws apply in this situation. I appreciate you discussing this with me, it did helped clear some misunderstandings I had.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XDDQ1PNK00000...

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

#197

Post by chasing »

crazygringo wrote: post #195
chasing wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying I’m right except in some narrowly carved-out situations. And I agree with you.

Nope. You said: > I wasn't asked and I don't really care to donate work to large corporations like that... I do get to decide what happens with it. And I said: > No. Both legally and practically, you absolutely do not. You think you get to decide whether large corporations can train on your work. I'm saying the the law suggests you very much don't get to decide that.

Read the comments you're replying to. I didn't comment on the legality of ChatGPT training on my content, I said I didn't like it. Regardless, the act of posting content publicly does not mean I give up my copyright claim. Yes, there are fair use situations. Training ChatGPT might be one of them, but I'm not seeing lot of concrete information one way or the other and I am seeing arguments that ChatGPT could be considered a derivative work, which would place OpenAI in violation of my copyright.

Send some links if you see some definitive case law sorting this stuff out.

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

#198

Post by tumult »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #186
tumult wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've made up an irrelevant argument. The work has been incorporated into a commercial product, intentionally, under the control of someone else. Software isn't humans that pay taxes, appear in court, have rights, etc.

No, the work has not been. The impression that the work leaves on a neural network has been though. AIs are not massive repositories of harvested data. The models are relatively small (<20GB).

A resized, smaller, or encoded version of an image is still subject to copyright. Calling an encoding an 'impression' is deceitful.

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

#199

Post by ChatGTP »

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.

Every email you send to a gmail backed account is this.

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

#200

Post by scarface_74 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #106
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

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…

> People put stuff up on the Internet with the expectation of its consumption by human minds

Then people obviously aren’t aware that bots have been indexing web pages and showing summarized information without going to the web page for three decades.

Post reply on HN