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

71–80 of 231 posts

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

#71

Post by sigmoid10 »

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

That's not how copyright works.

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

#72

Post by 6bb32646d83d »

chasing wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone can read your blog and then post their own blog post using knowledge they learned while reading yours. ChatGPT "learned" from your blog that same way

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

#73

Post by blfr »

chasing wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To some extent. Others can ingest your work, quote it, talk about it, criticize it, summarize, etc.

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

#74

Post by pessimizer »

jefftk wrote: post #65
pessimizer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LLMs were invented at least five years ago (BERT) though you could make the case for a few years earlier. My guess is the majority of Reddit users are new since then, not 0.1%?

Your guess is that the majority of Reddit users have joined since 2018? 1) I do not think that is correct, 2) the mere existence of LLMs isn't public awareness about how LLMs are trained, and 3) you know exactly what I'm saying and that 99.9% might be slight hyperbole.

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

#75

Post by JustBreath »

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…

> Plaintiff ... is concerned that Defendants have taken her skills and expertise, as reflected in [their] online contributions, and incorporated it into Products that could someday result in [their] professional obsolescence ...

It's been a bit surreal seeing modern day Luddites come out of the wood works basically coming up with any ethical/legal argument they can that is a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't want to be automated!"

Not commenting on whether or not they are right per se, but it's weird seeing history repeat itself.

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

#77

Post by Levitz »

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

>You don’t get to make information publicly available. But not publicly available.

But we do? Open sourcing something with caveats is common. This code is public BUT not for commercial use. This code is public BUT you must display attribution etc.

Sure, blogposts are unlicensed (that I know) but the idea of something publicly available being held to restrictions is nothing new.

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

#78

Post by Workaccount2 »

chasing wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a difference between learning from your work and copying your work.

You are entitled to control it's distribution and use. You are not entitled to control it's influence and effects.

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

#79

Post by roel_v »

replwoacause wrote: post #6

A tangential question...but does anyone know what software is used to generate legal documents that look like the PDF linked in the article? I’ve played with LaTeX templates a bit, but I seriously doubt law firms are futzing around with LaTeX for documents as complex as this. They must have some software that produces this formatting.

Lots of lawyers use WordPerfect. Version 5.1. There's plenty of evidence online if you don't believe me, I wouldn't believe me if this was the first time I heard it.

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

#80

Post by elforce002 »

bannedbybros wrote: post #17
submeta wrote: post #9

Well, it was too good to be true. Reminds me of the early days of music sharing and Napster.

Napster was people sharing files. That's a crime! But now it's corporations so it should be legal.

Well, I think the main catalyst here is that corporations need to pay creators, etc... Napster cut the middleman, hehe.
Post reply on HN