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

Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 342 posts

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#71

Post by mattigames »

pmoriarty wrote: post #41
cornholio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily they could recreate high quality art, music and anything else with just a tiny fraction of the effort that the rest of us need to reach similar results.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#72

Post by eru »

waselighis wrote: post #13
mattbee wrote: post #6

Good luck to them. AI models are automated plagiarism, top to bottom. None of us gave OpenAI permission to derive their model from our writing, surely billions of dollars worth, but they took it anyway. Copyright hasn't caught up so all that stolen value rests securely with OpenAI. If we're not getting that back, I don't see why AI competitors should have any qualms about borrowing each others' work.

Our writing, our code, our artwork... Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game. It would be hypocritical to think that Google is wrong and OpenAI is not.

> Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game.

Doesn't this depend on where you or the AI live? The US ain't the world.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#73

Post by rebuilder »

pmoriarty wrote: post #41
cornholio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

Human works are granted copyright so humans can profit from their creative endeavours (I’m not getting into whether this is good or not).

No-one cares about an algorithm in the same way.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#74

Post by 100721 »

eru wrote: post #72
waselighis wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our writing, our code, our artwork... Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game. It would be hypocritical to think that Google is wrong and OpenAI is not.

> Furthermore, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) concluded that AI-generated works on their own cannot be copyright, so these ChatGPT logs are free game. Doesn't this depend on where you or the AI live? The US ain't the world.

Microsoft and Google are both US-based companies.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#75

Post by syrrim »

nico wrote: post #12
sebzim4500 wrote: post #4

Did Google ever agree to these terms of service? Why should they care? From a legal point of view this doesn't matter and from a moral point of view it's hilarious.

If a Google employee working on this thing ever agreed to OpenAI's terms of service, they might be screwed. From OpenAI's terms: (c) Restrictions. You may not (i) use the Services in a way that infringes, misappropriates or violates any person’s rights; (ii) reverse assemble, reverse compile, decompile, translate or otherwise attempt to discover the source code or underlying components of models, algorithms, and syst…

What's the legal status of such terms of service? Suppose you simply said "i didn't agree to these terms" - what's the consequence? It seems like the strongest thing they could legitimately do would be to kick you off of their platform. Simply writing "we can seek injunctive relief" doesn't make it so.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#76

Post by whateveracct »

mattigames wrote: post #71
pmoriarty wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily the…

Startup technologists have been acting like speed of actions doesn't matter for decades. If a person can do it, why shouldn't a computer do it 1000x faster? What could go wrong? It's always been a poor argument at best and a bad faith one at worst.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#77

Post by rgbrenner »

ankit219 wrote: post #35

According to the article, the story goes this way: This engineer Jacob Devlin raised his concerns on training Bard with ShareGPT data. Then he directly joined OpenAI. He also claims that Google were about to do it, and then they stopped after his warnings. And presumably removed every trace of openai's responses. A couple of things: 1. So, Bard could have been trained on ShareGPT but it's not - according to the same…

Take what action? Pretty sure that’s not illegal, especially since the training data is ai generated and therefore can’t be copyrighted.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#78

Post by edgyquant »

pmoriarty wrote: post #41
cornholio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

This is irrelevant, full stop. We care about humans, AI is a tool and your bias comment is either ignorant or dishonest.

Re: Google denies training Bard on ChatGPT chats from ShareGPT

#80

Post by nathan_compton »

pmoriarty wrote: post #41
cornholio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely a derived work as far as copyright is concerned: the output would simply not exist without the copyrighted training data. > It's finding patterns same as anyone studying the code base would do. No, it's quite unlike anyone studying data, because it's not a person with legal rights, such as fair use, but an automated algorithm. There is absolutely no legal debate that copyright applies only to human au…

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

AI are not people and the idea that you can be biased against them is hardly a foregone conclusion. Like maybe one day when we have AGI, but ChatGPT ain't that.
Post reply on HN