It doesn't have to be internally consistent, it just has to make them money.
Not the case. That would be the case if OpenAI prevented them from using the same resources, which ChatGPT is not.
To keep that analogy going, they essentially used the ladder so hard, it broke.
It kind of is. Just think of how many services changed their data sharing policies and closed APIs due to ChatGPT training (Twitter, Stack Overflow, Reddit). Maybe the analogy is that instead of pulling the ladder, they set fire to it so it’s burning and making it harder for others to climb. Even if they didn’t set it alight on purpose, I don’t imagine they’re losing sleep over it.
Their ladder (using public data, and hiring humans to classify to taste) is still available I believe.
Not really. Once chatGPT came out, many sites changed their terms and/or significantly increased their API access costs to prevent/limit/make cost prohibitive future scraping.
I had assumed most of their web content was from Common Crawl, and the older pre-ChatGPT Common Crawl datasets used would still be available. But it looks like Twitter, for one, was not in Common Crawl.
Which is not openAI “pulling up the ladder behind them”
There is literally no way for them to avoid looking like assholes once they take enact barriers that they themselves did not have to overcome.
As far as we know.
- It’s legal and moral to train on data you have access to, regardless of copyright.
- Nobody is obligated to provide services to you so you can obtain that data from them.
It would be hypocritical if, say, ByteDance obtained synthetic data generated from GPT-4 and then OpenAI tried to prevent them from training on the data they already obtained. But all they are doing at the moment is temporarily pausing generating new data for them. OpenAI aren’t obligated to do this and OpenAI have never argued that other people are obligated to do it for them. So no hypocrisy.
tl;dr Google crawls you, you can't crawl Google. How is that fair? They built their empire on our brain outputs but won't share theirs.
So while OpenAI is absolutely lacks the moral high-ground, ByteDance still seems to be engaging in adversarial behavior.
OpenAI haven’t claimed this. They are refusing to generate new data for ByteDance by suspending their account.
Also breaking OpenAI's TOS is likely completely legal and everyone I know is collecting data to their own model. Worst they could do is ban the account.
It was a direct order from Paul Graham. He keeps mum about it but I have trusted sources who know the truth. Additionally, it's sort of public knowledge:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/11/22/sam-alt...
I don't have a full view into exactly why he was fired from both OpenAI and Y-combinator. But from what I hear the reasoning is a bit similar. Sam Altman is a bit of a political snake. He lacks ethics and he's not honest either. The last part is just me speculating on a lot of the anecdotes from quips I've heard over the years from people who know Sam.
Sams public persona is very different. And I think a lot of HN viewers worship that public persona. But Sam being a darling of the HN and Ycombinator themselves? No way. They fired him so it's unlikely.
That when you come to this site you have to type in the words ycombinator for the url right?
You said Sam is HNs darling. That's different from saying HN viewers. So you literally did not say what you said here.
Nope, this is wrong. HN is a site run by Y Combinator and heavily moderated but the comments are coming from the site's users and not Y Combinator itself
You most obviously must be referring to the owners of the website.
Or are you referring to the comments?
Because both the users and the owners of said website have vastly different opinions here.
Additionally at one point Sam Altman was literally a "darling" for the company, before he got fired.
Your statement is ambigiuose and therefore wrong.
OpenAI are free to block anyone from using their API if they want. Just like anyone hosting their content a website is free to block the OpenAI web crawler.
It’s not a straightforward copyright issue but in many jurisdictions that is not allowed. Company A did the work, they should be allowed to profit.
There is protection in a few notable jurisdictions so a violation would make the product illegal in those jurisdictions, which is a problem if it’s an online product.
Not equalizing those two situations at all, just pointing out that dynamics of communication between normal people don't really happen in many other situations, or if they do its just a shallow charade. Or... just don't expect fairness and good behavior when tons of money, power and legacies are at stake.
Google itself on the other hand does just this, for example Wikipedia text and lyrics are taken from other pages and copy pasted onto Google's page.
Try telling a "googler" this and theyll go "noooo but for Google it's different because Google has determined that's optimal and good for user experience". It's difficult to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.
In my experience googlers are very capable of saying “Google is bad but my salary is good”. Plenty of people understand things that are contrary to their paycheck.
That said, Google generally respects Wikipedia’s and others license to the data. And it is generally in the users best interest to get to desired content/information in less steps, regardless of the data’s provenance.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/22/23178245/google-paying-wi...
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18684211/google-song-lyri...
What I said is if I copy paste things into my page, Google will kill it because it's spam. If I say "but what I'm actually paying for this content"... That's irrelevant.
I'm not saying that Google is stealing content, I'm saying they're hypocritical is applying and argument when the conclusions benefit them, but not otherwise.