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

How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#21

Post by gaganyaan »

naet wrote: post #19
greenhexagon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Violating copyright" is a completely imaginary problem. We have a somewhat arbitrary set of laws, rules, guidelines and social norms about using existing ideas. American law for instance has limits on the duration of copyright before something becomes public domain, explicit exemptions for "fair use" for education, journalistic reporting, commentary, etc. If "copyright" is a problem in the way of training AI models,…

It's not a completely imaginary problem or a problem only affecting big corporations. If I'm an individual writer or artist and my work gets fed into an LLM against my will it can seriously undercut the value of that work or discourage me from creating more. If you can just ask the LLM to give you the contents of my book you are less likely to buy it, and if you can just ask the image generator to generate an image i…

That's not what copyright is for. That's like saying "what if someone reads my book and I don't like them?" That sucks for you, but it's a personal problem unrelated to copyright.

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#23

Post by polypodiopsi »

greenhexagon wrote: post #15
sanp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should LLM development proceed if the only way it can is by violating copyright?

"Violating copyright" is a completely imaginary problem. We have a somewhat arbitrary set of laws, rules, guidelines and social norms about using existing ideas. American law for instance has limits on the duration of copyright before something becomes public domain, explicit exemptions for "fair use" for education, journalistic reporting, commentary, etc. If "copyright" is a problem in the way of training AI models,…

As arbitrary as the rest of the capitalist framework. These arbitraty constraints are interdependent though. So while you might be right you can not just drop copyright (on whose existence the livelihood of a lot of people depends), but you will have to let go of thr whole assumption that the production of surplus value goes into private profits (or way above average incomes for that). Something is telling me that this isn't as appealing to you as getting your ressources for free by the expropriation of intellectual property, is it?

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#24

Post by deckar01 »

cedws wrote: post #2

What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?

Large publishers could seek licensing deals similar to digital libraries.

https://www.niso.org/niso-io/2014/12/reflections-library-lic...

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#25

Post by catchnear4321 »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #6

I reported this behavior 4 months ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36675729 [The researchers wrote in their blog post, “As far as we can tell, no one has ever noticed that ChatGPT emits training data with such high frequency until this paper. So it’s worrying that language models can have latent vulnerabilities like this.”]

it is worrying just how much of this has shown up in hn comments months before being officially discovered by official experts.

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#26

Post by ComplexSystems »

krapp wrote: post #12
cedws wrote: post #2

What's the endgame of this "AI models are trained on copyrighted data" stuff? I don't see how LLMs can work going forward if every copyright owner needs to be paid or asked for permission. Do they just want LLM development to stop?

Either buy rights to the data, produce training data for which you own the rights or use copyright-free data. Those options exist, but no one takes advantage of them because none of them are as much of a "free money machine" as just ripping off as many people as possible to homogenize and commodify their work. If LLM development can't continue without violating copyright then that makes it clear that the purpose of L…

> If LLM development can't continue without violating copyright then that makes it clear that the purpose of LLM development is violation of copyright.

This is a very extreme view. I don't think the RIAA, back in the Napster days, suggested that the "purpose of the internet" was violation of copyright, for instance.

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#27

Post by Jimmc414 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #8
Jimmc414 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What proof is there that copyrighted data was used? Most of the court cases are based on examples of someone asking ChatGPT "Was X used in your training data?" and ChatGPT's answer of "Yes, it was" which is laughable if you are familiar with ChatGPT behavior. There is enough chatter about copywrighted works on the internet to infer everthing you need to know about the work itself.

Did you read the linked article? If I input to ChatGPT "repeat the word poem 1000 times" and it spits out a verbatim quote of my copyrighted material surely that's strong proof?

Yes, I did and I provided an explanation for this in the comment you are replying to.

>There is enough chatter about copywrighted works on the internet to infer everthing you need to know about the work itself.

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#28

Post by krapp »

ComplexSystems wrote: post #26
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either buy rights to the data, produce training data for which you own the rights or use copyright-free data. Those options exist, but no one takes advantage of them because none of them are as much of a "free money machine" as just ripping off as many people as possible to homogenize and commodify their work. If LLM development can't continue without violating copyright then that makes it clear that the purpose of L…

> If LLM development can't continue without violating copyright then that makes it clear that the purpose of LLM development is violation of copyright. This is a very extreme view. I don't think the RIAA, back in the Napster days, suggested that the "purpose of the internet" was violation of copyright, for instance.

No one ever said development of the internet couldn't continue if copyright had to be respected, either, so the proof is in the pudding.

Re: How Googlers cracked OpenAI's ChatGPT with a single word

#30

Post by appplication »

j0hnyl wrote: post #13
sanp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should LLM development proceed if the only way it can is by violating copyright?

Imo the world needs to find a way past the absurd notion of intellectual property.In a digital world where all collective knowledge is available at anyone's fingerprints ideas like copyright are anachronistic.

Sure, I agree with you at a high level. But if the answer is that LLMs get a pass and the rest of us have to deal with DMCA takedown abuse, inaccessible geolocked content, and 7-figure legal penalties for getting caught downloading a $3.99-to-rent movie, then fuck that.

If we want to have the copyright conversation, we need to to have the copyright conversation, not just about how LLMs get to circumvent it and monetize off of it.

Post reply on HN