Artists must allow AI companies to harvest and learn from their output but people can't take OpenAI output for the same thing?
These companies already offer "styles" of other artists, what's wrong with making a "OpenAI" style?
I feel so many has lost the hacker spirit.
Conversely, if you don't use their services, as the output of AI models is (reportedly) non-copyrightable, I'd assume you're free to train on it so long as you don't actually make the requests yourself?
But I'm not a lawyer, and I'd ask one first before doing anything that risks expensive mistakes.
since they're not selling the model access to compete with chatgpt they're two different products.
"""For example, you may not:
…
• Attempt to or assist anyone to reverse engineer, decompile or discover the source code or underlying components of our Services, including our models, algorithms, or systems (except to the extent this restriction is prohibited by applicable law). """
May be fine, IDK, I'm not a lawyer.
I may also be looking at the wrong ToS entirely: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
Clear morally if you assume their stated goals are bad faith and just arse covering[0], not necessarily in law — by way of example, I have, sincerely, wondered how Google got away with crawling the web to create its search index. As this was before they were sued by newspapers for including snippets of search results, they ultimately didn't get away with it.
> We should be doing everything possible, including breaking ToS, to get as much value from ChatGPT
Generating additional and better models may be a tempting "screw the rich" option, but also the exact wrong option if you see their behaviour as IP theft that needs to be fixed — go to court, order the model to be destroyed, don't make more of them.
[0] I don't think they were originally, but (a) I generally look for the best in people, and (b) even if I'm right it is always possible they were/will be swayed by the presence of a huge pile of non-hypothetical money.
Does anyone besides the old board of directors even know why that board fired Altman a few months back?
I've not seen him do that, just a lot of people saying that's the only thing they can believe he must have meant.
What I've seen in his comments, in the original transcripts, is basically "regulate GPT-4 and better, don't bother regulating anything smaller or simpler than that, don't regulate open source models".
> You are correct in saying we should pursue lawfare against OpenAI to make sure such blatant and widescale theft can't happen again. I believe you are incorrect in saying it's a bad idea to produce more models.
Contradictory position. To produce more models based on one you characterise to be "theft" is to actually make it happen again.
Making new models from the output of their models is one of three ways I can see of doing this, along with court ordering their models be published (rather than destroyed), or some other company retraining from scratch on their own crawl of the web. This third option is also why I think anyone using the "moat" metaphor with regard to OpenAI's models needs to stop and think about how they're acting like a stochastic parrot.
No one said that. Just that you're probably violating ToS and OpenAI might come after you. Is that fair in light of what OpenAI has done? Of course not. But if you're running a business, it's still worth considering.
Someone with gumption might just go ahead and use GPT to train a model and then open it up as a paid competitor. Poking the bear is certainly an interesting way to spend a year for the adventurous.
If I were the author I'd never do this because I would want an exit and this strategy + twitter thread wildly complicates any potential exit.
Even though I don't think there is anything particularly morally problematic here (I'm an information freedom maximalist).