Dubious moral decision but an excellent business one. Perhaps the benefit of hindsight where ChatGPT didn't cause immediate societal collapse helps here.
And the story isn't about that single incident of Altman dodging review and working behind the backs of the board—it's about a pattern of deception and toxic management practices that culminated in Altman lying to Murati about what the legal department had said, which lie was given to the board as part of a folio of evidence that he needed to be ousted.
You're trying to distill a pattern of toxicity and distrust into a single decision, which ameliorates it more than is fair.
If this is something he's been doing for years, it becomes clearer why Y Combinator fired him, though they have been kind of cagey about it.
If this was the fault of Altman, it is understandable that certain people would want him out.
If we could incrementally update our own brains by swapping cells for chips, what percentage of our brain has to be chips before us learning from a book is a violation of copyright?
When learning to recite a recent children's poem in kindergarten, what level of accuracy can a child attain before their ability to repeat it privately to one other person at a time is a copyright violation?
The same percentage at which you stop qualifying to be human and become an unthinking tool, fully controlled by its operator to do whatever they want, without free will of its own and without any ethical concerns about abuse and slavery, like is the case with all LLMs.
(Of course, it is a moot point, because creating a human-level consciousness with chips is a thought experiment not grounded in reality.)
> When learning to recite a recent children's poem in kindergarten, what level of accuracy can a child attain before their ability to repeat it privately to one other person at a time is a copyright violation?
Any level thanks to the concept called human rights and freedoms, famously not applied to machines and other unthinking tools.
> as an echo of the past when people had the same debate about women and non-Europeans.
If you need help spotting the difference between skin color or gender variation and an imagined ability to imbue something we cannot even define (like consciousness) onto arbitrary substrates, I am not the right person for that.
If you are going to use human brain cells to memorize protected content and sell it as a product, that's still an issue based on current copyright laws.
You would never want to use an LLM to archive your writings or documents. They are incredibly bad at this.
LLMs are massive, lossy compressed datasets. They were designed to store the gist of effectively all digital language content humans ever created so an inference engine could use that data space to predict what a person might say to a prompt.
They were never designed to regurgitate exact copies of the original sources just use your favorite zip algorithm for that.
The question would be how closely an LLM can regurgitate an answer before running into copyright issues, and how the original training dataset was obtained.
And yet, that's all most billable hours at McKinsey, BCG, KPMG, are for. Those consultants memorized copyrighted stuff so your executives didn't have to.
It's very difficult to explain how GPT is not consulting.
You’d think any logical person would believe only one or the other is true, but big tech got many people believing this paradox because the industry depends on it. As soon as the paradox is over, the industry is revealed to be either based on IP theft or on slavery.
There is no problem to argue about, really: laws and basic rights and freedoms exist for humans; if %thing% (be it made of chips or brain cells) is not considered human then laws and rights apply to humans who operate it; if the thing is considered human then it itself has human rights to be reckoned with.
(This would be separate from the contributory infringement claim if the model will output a copyrighted work verbatim)
> This would be separate from the contributory infringement claim if the model will output a copyrighted work verbatim
2. Commercial for-profit models were shown to do that, and (other legal arguments aside, such as model and/or its output being a derivative work, etc.) in some cases that was precisely the smoking gun for the lawsuit, if I recall correctly.
I have not seen any conclusive outcome, I suppose it will depend on jurisdiction.
What is the competitive advantage of using chatbots, exactly?
Any advantage from ML that I can think of comes from advanced applications that require pre-existing knowledge, like biotech, metamaterials, etc.
— I fail to see how being able to use ML to cheat on a test or to avoid learning something (including command of own language) provides an advantage.
— I can see how requiring an LLM trained on unlicensed work to be opened up and free for everyone to use could provide an advantage.
— I can see how lack of regulation in this industry could result in a quick reduction of the number of jobs in a number of industries and therefore be a disadvantage to the economy, in the worst case benefiting a small number of for-profit corporate operators.
/s