401–410 of 439 posts
Wasn't there a recent OAI dev day in which they had some users come on stage and discuss how helpful ChatGPT was in parsing diagnoses from different doctors? I guess the legal risks were large enough to outweigh this
I'd wager it's probably more that there's an identifiable customer and specific product to be sold. Doctors, hospitals, EHR companies and insurers all are very interested in paying for a validated version of this thing.
Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Next will be: you're allowed to use it, if your company/product is "HippocraticGPT"-certified, a bit like SOC or PCI compliance. That's exactly how it should be. That's why one needs a license to practice medicine. I work with a company in this space. All the AI tools are for the professional to use - the patient never interacts with them. The inferred output (I prefer the word prediction) is only ever seen by a me…
What is the value of the certification on the AI output? If OpenAI says they'll get guarantee the output and be accountable for errors, then thats of value, and would justify the certification. Is that the bar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for anyone who wants to be nerd sniped by this one comment chain, the Acquired podcast recently did an episode on Epic and it is great. Title: "Epic Systems (MyChart)."
https://web.archive.org/web/20250903203659im_/https://media.... 227 MB 3:57:01 400 customers 47 years never lost a customer Epic refuses to be acquired or engage in M&A These podcasters seem to appreciate Epic. According to this recording, Epic's licensees like the product According to the podcast, the software was so useful, Epic's future customers asked its founder to start a company This was before the microproces…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…
Quite the over-simplified straw man you have there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…
You ever see warning labels on products? That's because putting them in terms and conditions isn't enough to avoid liability in a products liability case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(For anyone misunderstanding the reference to Epic, it's the name of an electronic healthcare record system widely used in American hospitals, not the game company Epic Games)
I was picturing a doctor AI NPC that gives you medical advice in the middle of your Fortnite game and now I'm disapointed
Hmm. So OpenAI doesn't care about other people's terms, copyrights or any sort of IP; but they get to have their own terms.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…
> If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model.
There is some nuance here that you fail to notice or you pretend you don't see it :D I can't copy-paste a computer program and resell it without a license. I can't say "Oh I've just read the bits, learned from it and based on this knowledge I created my own computer program that looks exactly the same except the author name is different in the »About...« section" - clearly, some reason has to be used to differentiate reading-learning-creating from simply copying...
What if instead of copy-pasting the digital code, you print it onto a film, pass the light through the film onto ants, make the light kill the ants exposed, and the rest of the ants eventually go away, and now use the dead ants as another film to somehow convert that back to digital data. You can now argue you didn't copy, you taught ants, the ants learned, and they created a new program. But you will fool no one. AI models don't actually learn, they are a different way the data is stored. I think when court decides if a use is fair and transformative enough, it investigates how much effort was put into this transformation: there was a lot of effort put into creating the AI, but once it was created, the effort put into any single work is nearly null, just the electricity, bandwidth, storage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this outrage. People put things on the internet for all to see but now you're mad someone saw it and made use of it. If you didn't want others to read your information you shouldn't have published it on the internet. That's all they're doing at the end of the day, reading it. They're not publishing it as their own, they just used publicly available data to train a model. It's quite the same as if I…
And I feel like the difference between, say; - Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie - Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process. should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested i…
I just legitimately think the outrage is unreasonable. It is completely infeasible for AI companies to provide any meaningful amount of compensation to all the data sources they use.
Alternatively they could just not use any of the data, in which case we wouldn't have as good LLMs and other than that the world would be exactly the same. These data owners don't notice any difference. Using their data doesn't harm them in any way.
You seem to be arguing that enabling people to mimic Ghibli's art style somehow harms them, I don't see how it does at all. People have been able to mimic it already, what's the difference? More people can? Does that make a difference to ghibli? I mean can you point to some concrete negative effects that his phenomenon has had on studio ghibli?
I don't think you can. And I think that proves my point. Anything can be mimicked. People can play covers of songs, paint their own versions of famous paintings, copy Louis Vuitton bag designs, whatever they want. The effort it takes is irrelevant.
You don't even have to train AI on studio Ghibli's art to mimic it. You could just train it on other stuff and then the user could feed it studio ghibli art and tell it to mimic it. The specific training data itself is irrelevant, it's the volume of data that trains the models. Even if they specifically avoided training on studio Ghibli's art there would likely be basically no difference. It wouldn't be worth paying them for it.
"This technology will radically transform the way our world works and soon replace all knowledge-based jobs. Do not trust anything it says: Entertainment purposes only."
In bold: This technology will radically transform the way our world works and soon replace all knowledge-based jobs.
In fine print: Do not trust anything it says: Entertainment purposes only