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

51–60 of 231 posts

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

#51

Post by scarface_74 »

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…

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

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

#52

Post by chasing »

scarface_74 wrote: post #51
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…

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

Yes I do. I own the work I create, even if it's publicly available. I do get to decide what happens with it.

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

#53

Post by pessimizer »

zug_zug wrote: post #10

Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

> Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

If you're going to make a claim this strong, you should expand on it. Should software be able to have custody of children? Should it be able to kill in self-defense? Should it be able to make 14th amendment claims? Exactly what part of the case (other than the damage claim) is hard to understand?

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

#54

Post by jbarrow »

barathr wrote: post #32

Rather than there being lawsuit after lawsuit of this sort, we wrote an op-ed this morning that says there should be a simple, compulsory licensing fee that AI companies pay to the public -- something we called the AI Dividend: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/29/ai-pay-ame...

The order of magnitude of suggested pricing is really interesting: $0.001/word is significantly more expensive than, say, OpenAI's pricing of GPT-3.5-turbo ($0.002/1k tokens, ~750 words, so ~$0.000003/word, assuming I got my zeros correct). So this would increase the cost of running GPT-3 by about 300x.

In terms of implementation, I wonder about a few things:

Do models trained on more data have to pay more? LLaMA was trained on 1.5T tokens, the original GPT-3 was trained on ~300B tokens. And this is only partially related to model quality, LLaMA 13B and LLaMA 65B were trained on the same data, but the 65B model is better. What's the incentive to ever use the 13B model, if the licensing cost is 100x-1000x the model inference cost?

Who defines a word? Each model uses a different tokenizer. I'm personally amused by the idea of a government-mandated tokenizer.

What about generations that never see human eyes? As an NLP researcher, I've generated millions of tokens for training and automatic evaluation purposes -- are those subject to licensing as well?

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

#55

Post by shubhamgrg04 »

If we dissect this case, it seems to revolve around two central questions: what constitutes 'public' data and to what extent can AI models leverage such data without infringing upon individual privacy. This lawsuit may well set a significant precedent in defining the boundaries of AI ethics and data privacy.

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

#56

Post by pessimizer »

codekansas wrote: post #19
zug_zug wrote: post #10

Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

> including personal information obtained without consent Obtained from (check notes) public internet forums > 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. You've got to be incredibly naive if you think public Reddit data isn't used to train ML models, not…

Or maybe when you started posting on reddit, LLMs hadn't been invented yet. This is true for 99.9% of the people who post on Reddit.

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

#57

Post by shagie »

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…

> But if it does, I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding.

One of the "I wonder where this will go" things with the reddit and twitter exoduses to activity pub based systems is that it is trivial for something to federate with it and slurp data without any TOS interposed.

The TOSes for these systems are typically based based on what can be pushed to them - not what can be read (possibly multiple federations downstream).

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

#58

Post by amelius »

zug_zug wrote: post #10

Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

> Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

It's legal for me to look out of the window and watch my neighbor go to the supermarket.

It's _not_ legal for me to build an automated surveillance system that tracks everybody on the street 24×7 and stores everything into a large database.

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

#59

Post by pessimizer »

data-ottawa wrote: post #14
zug_zug wrote: post #10

Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage. Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.

I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.

> I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want,

Whoever told you that is lying to you. You are not legally allowed to personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all you want, any more than you're allowed to personally memorize, write down copyrighted works, and distribute them as much as you want.

All piracy is a process of computer-assisted remembering and reciting.

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

#60

Post by pessimizer »

brookst wrote: post #30
data-ottawa wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can personally memorize and recite copyrighted works all I want, but when ChatGPT does it then it’s in a commercial context and they’re liable to be sued for infringement. If you ask ChatGPT the rules for D&D, the private sourcebooks are all in there.

Not how copyright works. Being non-commercial is not an automatic fair use exception. Being commercial does not preclude fair use. And rule concepts are not copyrightable, only the specific expression. Rules may have other IP protection, including patents.

> Rules may have other IP protection, including patents.

That's not even true in the US anymore. You'd have to convert those rules into some sort of device, or argue that the game is a business method.

Post reply on HN