31–40 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL too, but if there is indeed a legal case for material misrepresentation, it would make more sense to be brought by OpenAI shareholders or the FTC, not some random dude from Texas.
What's wrong with the guy from texas that he shouldn't do it?
I think a lot of people have a lot of opinions on any kind of feedback that is related to, "OpenAI took everyone's content and is now profiting off of it.". The way I see it, the biggest losers are the average consumers. If you got skin in the game and you know how to automate the OpenAI API at scale - you're winning big. Google can't keep up with what is real or what isn't if you actually put in the work to structur…
It’s supposed to be a bad thing that OpenAI is making the world more efficient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without irony, here's ChatGPT's summary: This legal complaint alleges that defendants operating a non-profit entity for the benefit of humanity have committed massive fraud on donors, beneficiaries, and the public. The complaint raises concerns about OpenAI's operation, including its dual structure as a non-profit and a for-profit entity, potential insider dealings, and the exclusion of the general public from its be…
Wow, that's the most useful ChatGPT summary I've ever come across. I've never found it particularly useful for most articles which are easy enough to read/skim (the first and last 2 paragraphs will usually tell you what you need), but long complicated legal documents are a whole other matter. This is great.
The only challenge is chunking the larger bills and synthesizing the larger summary without losing out on possible nuances. Something like California's SB423, for example, is over twice the 8K token limit and that's not even a large bill.
Unfortunately, things like the US Code or Code of Federal Regulations are in the range of 100s of millions of tokens.
I think a lot of people have a lot of opinions on any kind of feedback that is related to, "OpenAI took everyone's content and is now profiting off of it.". The way I see it, the biggest losers are the average consumers. If you got skin in the game and you know how to automate the OpenAI API at scale - you're winning big. Google can't keep up with what is real or what isn't if you actually put in the work to structur…
> you actually had to manually put in the work and the hours to try and piece together multiple key points from 10 different sources to create one unique perspective It’s supposed to be a bad thing that OpenAI is making the world more efficient?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's the most useful ChatGPT summary I've ever come across. I've never found it particularly useful for most articles which are easy enough to read/skim (the first and last 2 paragraphs will usually tell you what you need), but long complicated legal documents are a whole other matter. This is great.
Assuming it’s accurate.
My impression was that hallucination happened when it simply didn't have facts in the first place, had conflicting facts, etc.
I thought summarization was generally fairly reliable, but I'd be happy to know if this is not the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that's the most useful ChatGPT summary I've ever come across. I've never found it particularly useful for most articles which are easy enough to read/skim (the first and last 2 paragraphs will usually tell you what you need), but long complicated legal documents are a whole other matter. This is great.
Assuming it’s accurate.
I think a lot of people have a lot of opinions on any kind of feedback that is related to, "OpenAI took everyone's content and is now profiting off of it.". The way I see it, the biggest losers are the average consumers. If you got skin in the game and you know how to automate the OpenAI API at scale - you're winning big. Google can't keep up with what is real or what isn't if you actually put in the work to structur…
1. Humans were generating massive amounts of false information that Google couldn't keep up with, years before Openai appeared.
2. The people who stand to lose the most are those whose jobs are replaceable: information workers. I cringe hearing "but this is different than the industrial revolution and government needs to protect me".
3. If Openai "stole" publicly posted content, then so does Google, and so does every human who reads anything online.
4. You may be right about brakes. Revolutions that displaced factory workers, taxi drivers, typists -- those were all well and good. But threaten the moneyed class and suddenly we're seeing so-called libertarians (not you, I mean like Musk) calling for regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd upload the PDF of the complaint, but it's 55 MB for some reason which will kill the bandwidth of any free-sharing service.
> it's 55 MB for some reason Because it has 280 pages of newspaper articles and white papers about OpenAI, ChatGPT, and other startups attached to it as exhibits, many of which are only tangentially related to the case.
PDF embedding is funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you actually had to manually put in the work and the hours to try and piece together multiple key points from 10 different sources to create one unique perspective It’s supposed to be a bad thing that OpenAI is making the world more efficient?
It is yes, at everyone else's expense while making a profit from it. What's your point exactly?