Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

>For most companies “deleting the model” is equivalent to dissolving the company

I'm okay with that. It's sad that you're not. If you're willing to start a business on such shady foundations, there's a really good chance your business will continue to make shady decisions in the future. It's better to find and remove the cancer early

View on HN

I just disagree that it's shady. If you put your personal info into public circulation I think it's absolutely morally fine to have a model train on it.

There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use. Similarly, blog posts are in public, but not being given away for anyone to resell or include in their product.

For an image/photography example, I may have my photo taken at an event and sign a release or agree to the event's T&Cs that say they can put publicity photos on their social media or website, but I don't intend that my photo will be used by an unrelated party to generate images of my face (this may not actually be restricted, yet, but I'd prefer it to be and I suspect few would consider it a reasonable outcome).

> There's a difference between being in public and being available for public use. Books in a book shop are "in public", but only those out of copyright are available for public use

Copying books can be fair use if it is sufficiently transformative, copyright doesn't block all use of copyrighted material. A major case on this was around Google building a search index for books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

Open AI is currently attempting to argue that training a model is more transformative than building a search index, whether they win that argument or not is still to be seen.

Building and granting access to a generative model is far more damaging to the market prospects of the infringed works, which is also a factor. Like…the whole goal is for it to be able to replace what humans do, which is about as market-damaging as I can imagine. I’m not a lawyer, though.

This is true for some types of transformative work, but aggregating to make money off others work is not generally allowed. I think Open AI are in for a hard time with this when people look at the results and see their work clearly.

your data can be public without your consent, what then ?

I may sue the person who made it public without my consent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com