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

OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

webapps.sftc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#61

Post by brookst »

skilled wrote: post #55
brookst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about factory automation? Is it equally tragic that a sheet metal hood that took 4 people a day to make is now 15 minutes for a completely automated machine?

As it happens I have actually worked in a factory before. Not for very long but for long enough to get an idea of the said "automated machine". Factory work is probably one of the most exhausting and labor (mental and physical) intensive jobs you can get in this world. It doesn't matter that the machine does all the smashing and mashing for you. You still have to pick up the ingredients, you still have to move the pr…

Everything you said about factory work is also true of creative work. Authors will tell you that it's 10% writing and 90% rewriting.

I try not to guess at motives and goals of people I don't know because I don't think they matter. It doesn't sound like your opinions would change if Altman submitted to a brain scan where you could verify his purity (or not), and honestly mine wouldn't either. And no, I dobn't see pathos in for-profit entities talking about safety. Carmakers, construction companies, and theme parks all do the same thing.

I see AI as a productivity multiplier, much as you described factory automation. And I see a lot of information workers suddenly echoing the same concerns we all ignored from factory workers, because oh wow now it could affect us.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#62

Post by masswerk »

masswerk wrote: post #60
brookst wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: 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…

A 1) Still, as this were humans, there was a purpose and an agenda behind this, which was pretty much the give-away. Now it'll be just junk content superficially optimized for high approval rates. And the economic incentives provide a strong hint for this being soon the majority of any (written) content, there is, esp. on the Web.

P.S.: Possible outcome: Publishing may shift (back) to forms, which involve higher costs, like print, in order to provide a suitable filter, both economical and in terms of an higher-order review (as provided by a publisher). The Web, lacking any of these filters, may actually follow the way of Usenet.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#63

Post by lewhoo »

brookst wrote: post #38
skilled wrote: post #27

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…

Counterpoint: 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…

"and so does every human who reads anything online"

Why should things have human rights and privileges then ? I really don't know the solution to the emerging issues we face here, but I read the same "like a human" argument over and over and I can't really help but notice that LLM's are NOT human. We deny a lot of human rights to primate animals but should immediately accept the human-likeness of LLM's ?

"If Openai "stole" publicly posted content, then so does Google"

This also makes a lot of assumptions which I think we shouldn't make just yet. That's because if we equate LLM's with a search engine then the argument of plagiarism makes a lot more sense. At least google leads to the original content.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#64

Post by ForestCritter »

skilled wrote: post #55
brookst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about factory automation? Is it equally tragic that a sheet metal hood that took 4 people a day to make is now 15 minutes for a completely automated machine?

As it happens I have actually worked in a factory before. Not for very long but for long enough to get an idea of the said "automated machine". Factory work is probably one of the most exhausting and labor (mental and physical) intensive jobs you can get in this world. It doesn't matter that the machine does all the smashing and mashing for you. You still have to pick up the ingredients, you still have to move the pr…

I also work in manufacturing metal parts, mainly because it pays better and is more stable than using my creative skill, and I am currently without a workshop. Creative skills are often devalued on here as well as operating skills are devalued in factories. The 'industrial revolution' is often cited as the end all argument, despite a complete lack of understanding of the skills and labor required for both manufacturing and creative processes, to appropriate the efforts of said creative skills for free. And as someone who has had to 'wrangle the robots' in our semi automated line I can safely say automation is not nearly as widespread or glorious as it is made out to be. The data didn't fall from the sky and it wasn't created by robots. It takes humans to make data just like it takes humans to work in factories.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#65

Post by iinnPP »

skilled wrote: post #34
rlt wrote: post #32

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?

Seems par for the course here(and everywhere). Society has become(perhaps always has been) incredibly selfish. The extent of the common persons concern for others is typically expressed on things like Twitter or even HN. The types are in the same category as NIMBYs.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

minimaxir wrote: post #3

The argument in the complaint is that "OpenAI said they would develop software for everyone, but they gave early favoritism to YC companies, so they went back on their promise." This complaint sounds like a high-effort shitpost. The plantiff is filing this pro se. Just see the full list of defendants: SAM ALTMAN, an individual; REID HOFFMAN, an individual; GREG BROCKMAN, an individual; ILYA SUTSKEVER, an individual;…

> The argument in the complaint is that "OpenAI said they would develop software for everyone, but they gave early favoritism to YC companies, so they went back on their promise."

There are several different arguments in the complaint, but the most dangerous to OpenAI seems to be the accusation of principals using the nonprofit for commercial self-dealing which, notwithstanding that this is a pro se filing with a bunch of tangential conspiracy theories in its initial narrative seems both adequately pled and quite likely to be true from the information publicly available.

The big problem for the plaintiff is the theory of standing the complaint relies on, which while reasonably well-pled seems to be something the courts are likely to be leary of as it would grant open season on broad-claimed-benefit nonprofits.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#67

Post by dragonwriter »

minimaxir wrote: post #17
godfrzero wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but my reading of this was quite different. It seems to me like the core of the argument is that "OpenAI" wants non-profit benefits while clearly profiting. While the complaint document itself is verbose, I imagine this is the kind of thing that eventually contributes to setting a precedent for how training data is handled in the legal system as well?

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.

> IANAL too, but if there is indeed a legal case for material misrepresentation, it would make more sense to be brought by OpenAI shareholders

The case is for material misrepesentation to benefit OpenAI shareholders at the expense of the identified intended beneficiaries of (and donors to) the OpenAI nonprofit. Why would the beneficiaries of the fraud challenge it?

> or the FTC, not some random dude from Texas.

The law often creates multiple different parties with a legitimate and enforceable interewt in the same requirement; while the plaintiff here doesn’t have the strongest standing claim in the world, it is not diminished for thr fact that some of the allegations create much stronger claims for, say, the IRS and state tax authorities or donors to the nonprofit (particularly the accusations of the nonprofit being fraudulently organized and operated for self-dealing for the commercial benefit of certain of its organizers.)

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

gumby wrote: post #23
crazygringo wrote: post #21

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.

Its accurate. (I read the whole filing.)

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#69

Post by dragonwriter »

duskwuff wrote: post #29
eek2121 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple claims, all related to 'fraud'. Claims that OpenAI is committing fraud because they are a for-profit disguised as a non-profit, for example.

There's some pretty kooky claims and generally bizarre statements buried in the filing, such as: * "Altman and the other parties to this suit are increasing the risk of global human extinction or actual world domination by a small set of individuals for a chance to personally gain extended lifespans. It is the reasonable explanation for taking such massive risks with this technology and flaunting the law so obviously…

> There's some pretty kooky claims and generally bizarre statements buried in the filing,

Sure, but the kooky claims are mostly tangential to the identified causes of action except the fourth, and they aren’t the sole basis for that one, so they have marginal bearing on the overall suit.

Re: OpenAI Sued for Fraud Allegations

#70

Post by rlt »

skilled wrote: post #55
brookst wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you feel about factory automation? Is it equally tragic that a sheet metal hood that took 4 people a day to make is now 15 minutes for a completely automated machine?

As it happens I have actually worked in a factory before. Not for very long but for long enough to get an idea of the said "automated machine". Factory work is probably one of the most exhausting and labor (mental and physical) intensive jobs you can get in this world. It doesn't matter that the machine does all the smashing and mashing for you. You still have to pick up the ingredients, you still have to move the pr…

> I am talking about creative work. The kind of work where people had to go and first identify the issue themselves (not to mention come up with a unique solution in the first place), and then tell others how to work with it.

I’m sure film photographers complained about digital photography when it was first introduced. And painters about film photography. Etc etc.

Post reply on HN