OpenAI’s hunger for data is coming back to bite it
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
Rather, I wonder what would be the effect of this on open source weights, as they have the same issue of being able to produce personal data of European citizens.
If a company isn't operating in the EU then there is little the EU can do to them as the EU doesn't have jurisdiction over them.
It's the same as the US able to fine two foreign entities doing business together... because they use dollar for the transaction: the US is not part of the transaction EXCEPT for the use of the money.
Usually, the "guilty" companies will be fined and then... either ignore it (but risk trouble directly in the US or when they will try to have business with an US entity... or with an entity having part of its activity in US...), or just pay. Same will apply here: either pay the fine or you won't be able to do business in the EU nor with any EU company... and possibly even not with a company in business with a EU company (indirectly)
> either pay the fine or you won't be able to do business [...] possibly even not with a company in business with a EU company
That one seems a bit sus, because it would imply that you won't be able to use GCP/Azure/AWS for cloud services, and that just doesn't sound right. Afaik they wouldn't blanket refuse cloud services to an american business that doesn't follow EU laws (in case the business simply doesn't care to operate in EU or make money from there).
Not a legal professional at all, so if someone could provide a better explanation of the situation, it would certainly be welcome.
In the 2nd scenarios above, you may have to work harder in your woodchopping business, as I'm now competition, but doesn't that mean that the villagers benefit from better access (cheaper prices) to wood-chopping services?
We currently define ideas as property. But is that ethically defensible? Now, if I claim to have originated the ax idea, I'm maybe stealing your brand or reputation. I should have to give credit to you for the idea of an ax, but I don't see how making a copy is theft. Ideas are not scarce; they're inherently shareable.
> you may have to work harder in your woodchopping business, as I'm now competition
So China copying our products is good, because we now have competition?
Regarding China, copying without attribution should be prosecuted as a form of reputational or brand fraud, as it fails to give credit to others for the idea. And sure, under existing intellectual property laws many Chinese firms ought to be prosecuted and held accountable---I don't advocate breaking existing laws.
I simply think that the laws out to be brought into better alignment with reality, and ideas simply aren't scarce (at least in how economics considers scarcity).
That is precisely the issue at hand.
> Ideas are fundamentally different
But that's essentially what products are. It's not like chinese companies take a product and clone it, they take the idea of how to make a product look like and work and implement it. Same applies to code, art, books. OpenAI takes those products, the results of ideas, modify them and resell them without attribution or without having paid a license. That's simply theft.
Is code an idea? Is the corpus of Github an idea?
It will be generally good for the world, for American manufacturing, workers, businesses, and families---pretty much for all except Wall Street banks and those close to the government money spigots.
That's precisely what malicious actors such as China have done. Not only are we swamped with lower quality products, but as you wrote, we are also facing significant social and economic issues. This time at an unprecedented scale.
Yes? Isn't that the entire point of the market driving innovation and improving things over time?
Let's try the opposite: Why is China copying foreign products bad? And to whom?
I’m aware you might think that their approach sucks too but we can’t have it both ways.
Same rules have to be applied across the board.
Although legitimate interest does not specifically require consent it DOES require that the subject is informed of the collection of the data.
Also, legitimate interest doesn’t apply to many categories of data otherwise protected by law. e.g. health info
Also, it doesn’t override their other lawful rights, such as the right to be forgotten.
Link? This was not my recollection of it at all.
Would also put Google and other search engines in violation so doesn’t seem right.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
Basically you just need to declare them in you privacy policy and keep a record for compliance.
In terms of LI though it's really complicated and I don't think anyone here on this site is in a position to say for sure if LI applies to what OpenAI is doing. There are arguments from both sides that make sense.
That said, this article is only devoting a sentence to way more important requests, which are the implementation of right to be forgotten and especially the problem with inventing false personal data. Which is a huge issue and what distinguishes artificial intelligence from autocomplete.
For more information: https://www.reuters.com/technology/italy-lift-curbs-chatgpt-...
By the way, blocking ChatGPT from Italy is not enough to avoid the GDPR violation. OpenAI is handling(*) personal data of Italian citizens, and therefore they must allow them to exercise their rights, even if OpenAI is not providing service in Italy. Blocking ChatGPT was just a fig leaf to show they were doing something.
(*) Because people say the personal data is not part of the model, "handling" is defined as performing any in a list of actions which includes disseminating, and "personal data" is defined as "data that allows identification of a person". So if "ChatGPT is disseminating data that allows identification of a person", then "OpenAI is handling personal data"; the former is simply a subset of the latter.