Microsoft, OpenAI sued for ChatGPT 'privacy violations' • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by samstave » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

hbn wrote: post #64

amelius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd say this is more like if someone automated taking pictures of every flyer and missing pet poster people put up on a lightpole and saved it to a database. There's more deliberate action when you post something on a public online form than just existing in a place outside of your house. Especially considering you've always had the option to use reddit anonymously anyway.

>use reddit anon....

Read, yes - post no.

And - you can no longer create an account that is not tied to an email...

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

#92

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

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...

Can't wait for the deluge of AI generated content dumped en masse on the internet purely to harvest "AI Dividends".

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

#93

Post by samstave » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:37 PM UTC

paddw wrote: post #23

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.

They're fishing.

Likely hoping for whatever settlement they can squeeze out of OpenAI as the first such suit against them...

They picked 3B hoping to get several million...

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

#94

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:38 PM UTC

mbgerring wrote: post #40

Wow, I really don’t get it, if I were to memorize billions of pages worth of people’s private messages and medical records, then recited them live in the Internet, would that be a crime??

Yes, it would be.

Thankfully AI doesn't work by memorization.

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

#95

Post by tumult » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

6bb32646d83d wrote: post #72

chasing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Computers aren't people. Software isn't humans.

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

#96

Post by ben_w » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #69

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…

That’s the economics of (non-symbolic) AI. To work, it needs humans to create stuff for free. Putting it more bluntly, it is somewhere between a parasite and a slave driver.

It doesn't require humans to work for free — while that's been a common default MO since everyone looked at Google making a search index and thinking to themselves "if they're doing it surely do can we", there are data sets made by paying people.

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

#97

Post by I_am_tiberius » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

What I noticed is that the privacy setting which should prevent OpenAI to use my data for training purposes, was already deleted twice and I had to set it again. No idea what that means and if the data that I entered before I noticed that setting was gone is now being owned by OpenAI. Anyway, it is obvious that privacy is no priority to them. Also, it's known that YC companies are informally being told they should not worry about privacy while scaling up. Open AI is not a YC company, but its culture is definitely derived from it.

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

#98

Post by tumult » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #78

chasing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you've made up an irrelevant argument. The work has been incorporated into a commercial product, intentionally, under the control of someone else. Software isn't humans that pay taxes, appear in court, have rights, etc.

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

#99

Post by pksebben » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

JustBreath wrote: post #75

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…

I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong - these are people who are behaving completely rationally given their context.

(I should caveat that I think if they get what they want, we all lose in a big way. Not that I think this is going anywhere)

We're coming up on the outer bounds of our systems of incentives. Captialism, as a system, is designed to solve for scarcity, both in terms of resources and in terms of skill and effort. Unfortunately, one of the core mechanisms it operates on is that it's all-or-nothing. You MUST find a scarcity to solve or you divorce yourself from the flow of capital (and starve / become homeless as a result).

Thus, artificial scarcity. It's easy to spot in places like manufacturing (planned obsolescence) IP (drug / software / etc patents) and so forth. I think this is just the rest of humanity both catching on and being caught up with. Two years ago, everyone thought they had a moat by virtue of being human. That's no longer a given.

One hopes that we'll collectively notice the rot in the foundation before the house falls over (and, critically, figure out how to act on it. We have a real problem with collective action these days that may well put us all in the ground).

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

#100

Post by mrtranscendence » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 2:43 PM UTC

6bb32646d83d wrote: post #72

chasing wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Since the way GPT "learns" is not materially similar to how a human learns, I don't see why this talking point is particularly relevant. Nothing stops the courts from distinguishing between an AI and a human with regard to what may be permissible.