Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right and that's why it's a farce. > Whoa whoa whoa, we can't let just anyone run these models. Only large corporations who will use them to addict children to their phones and give them eating disorders and suicidal ideation, while radicalizing adults and tearing apart society using the vast profiles they've collected on everyone through their global panopticon, all in the name of making people unhappy so that it's…
A corporate dystopia is still better than extinction. (Assuming the latter is a reasonable fear)
OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
551–560 of 1001 posts
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clever, but the law is not a machine or an algorithm. Intent matters. Training an LLM with the intent of contravening an NDA is just plain . Everyone would still get sued anyway.
But then training a commercial model is done with the intent to not pay the original authors, how is that different?
no one building this software wants to “steal from creators” and the legal precedent for using copyrighted works for the purpose of training is clear with the NYT case against open AI
It’s why things like the recent deal with Reddit to train on their data (which Reddit owns and users give up when using the platform) are becoming so important, same with Twitter/X
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS Word does not actively collect and process all texts for all available sources and does not offer them in recombined form. MS Word is passive whereas the whole point of an LLM is to produce output using a model trained on ingested data. It is actively processing vast amounts of texts with intent to make them available for others to use and the T&C state that the user owns the copyright to the outputs based on work…
Legally, copyright is only concerned with the specific end work. A unique or not so unique standalone object that is being scrutinized, if this analogy helps. The process involved in obtaining that end work is completely irrelevant to any copyright case. It can be a claim against the models weights (not possible as it's fair use), or it's against the specific once off output end work (less clear), but it can't be loo…
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
So I think the law, at least as currently interpreted, does care about the process.
Though maybe you meant as to whether a new work infringes existing copyright? As this guidance is clearly about new copyright.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a child I used to watch a TV programme called Tomorrows World. On it they predicted these very same things in similar timeframes. That programme aired in the 1980's. Other than vested promises is there much to indicate it's close at all? Empty promises aside there isn't really any indication of that being likely at all.
In the early 1980's we were just coming out of the first AI winter and everyone was getting optimistic again. I suspect there will be at least continued commercial use of the current tech, though I still suspect this crop is another dead end in the hunt for AGI.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#555"It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it." I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.
It’s all about freedom from government tyranny and censorship. Freedom from corporate tyranny is another matter entirely, and generally relies on individuals being careful about what they agree to.
See the assassination attempts on president Jackson.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#556"It forbids them, for the rest of their lives, from criticizing their former employer. Even acknowledging that the NDA exists is a violation of it." I find it hard to understand that in a country that tends to take freedom of expression so seriously (and I say this unironically, American democracy may have flaws but that is definitely a strength) it can be legal to silence someone for the rest of their life.
It’s all about freedom from government tyranny and censorship. Freedom from corporate tyranny is another matter entirely, and generally relies on individuals being careful about what they agree to.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#557They don't talk publicly, but they're almost always OK if you're friends with them. I have two ex-OpenAI friends, and there is a lot of shit going in there. Of course, I won't reveal their identities, even in a court. And they will deny they said anything to me. But the info, if needed, might get leaked through trusted friends. And nobody can do anything with that.
I also work hard not to print gossip and hearsay (I try not to even mention so much as a first name, I think I might have slipped one or twice on that though not in connection with an accusation of wrongdoing), there’s more than enough credible journalism to paint a picture, any person whose bias (and I have my own but it’s not like, over being snubbed for a job or something it’s a philosophical/ethical/political agenda) has not utterly robbed them of objectivity can acknowledged that “this looks really bad and worse all the time” on the basis of purely public primary sources and credible journalism.
I think some of the inside baseball I try very hard not to put in writing might be what cranks it up to “people are doing time”.
I’ve caught more than a little “less than a great time” over being a vocal critic, but I’m curious if having gone pretty far down the road and saying something is rotten, why you’d declare a willingness to defy a grand jury or a judge?
I’ve never been in court, let alone held in contempt, but I gather it’s fairly hard time to openly defy a judge.
I have friends I’d go to jail for, but not very many and none who work at OpenAI.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is outputting the partially copyright-infringing works of their LLM for profit. How does that square?
You, the user, is inputting variables into their probability algorithm that's resulting in the copyright work. It's just a tool.
What is the difference OpenAI has that lets them get away with, but not our hypothetical Mr. Smartass doing the same process trying to get around an NDA?
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a defense. If imaginary cloud provider "ZFQ" uses 10MW of electricity on a grid and pays for it to magically come from green generation, that means 10MW of other loads on the grid were not powered by green energy, or 10MW of non-green power sources likely could have been throttled down/shut down. There is no free lunch here; "we buy our electricity from green sources" is greenwashing bullshit. Even if they…
Who is going to decide what are a worthy uses of our precious green energy sources?
We do not have that. The cost of energy is mis-priced, although we are limping our way to fixing that.
Paying the likely fair cost for our goods, will probably kill a lot of current industries - while others which are currently viable, will become viable.
Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't even have to be a surprise. Pretty much startup employment agreement in existence gives the company ("at the board's sole discretion") the right to repurchase your shares upon termination of employment. OpenAI's PPUs are worth $0 until they become profitable. Guess which right they'll choose to exercise if you don't sign the NDA?
Who would accept shares as valuable if the contract said they can be repurchased from you at a price of 0$? This can't be it.