>For the 16 plaintiffs, the complaint indicates that they used ChatGPT, as well as other internet services like Reddit, and expected that their digital interactions would not be incorporated into an AI model.<p>I don't expect this lawsuit to lead anywhere. But if it does, I hope it leads to some clear laws regarding data privacy and how TOS is binding. The recent ruling regarding web scraping makes the case against OpenAI a lot weaker. [1] Data scraping publicly available data is legal. People didn't need consent to having their data be used, there was an implicit assumption the moment the data was published to the public, like on reddit or youtube.<p>I keep seeing this idea reoccur in the suit:<p>>Plaintiff ... is concerned that Defendants have taken her skills and expertise, as reflected in [their] online contributions, and incorporated it into Products that could someday result in [their] professional obsolescence ...<p>Anyone is able to file a suit, I wish people stopped assuming that a news report automatically means it has merit.<p>1. <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-proposed-settlement-landmark-scraping-case" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hiq-and-linkedin-reach-...</a>
I mean, it ingested all of the content from my blog. Without my permission. It's not a major part of their corpus of data, but still -- I wasn't asked and I don't really care to donate work to large corporations like that.<p>So the technology is cool, but I'm firmly of the stance that they cut corners and trampled peoples' rights to get a product out the door. I wouldn't be entirely unhappy if this iteration of these products were sued into the ground and were forced to start over on this stuff The Right Way.
Hard to understand how this is a crime, or how they came up with 3 billion dollars of damage.<p>Seems like if it's legal for a person to do it should be legal for software to do for the most part.
Fishing expedition. Will probably get thrown out because no particular injury can be enunciated. OpenAI scraped HN as well, and I don't consider my HN posts private because anyone can come here and read them, including artificial intelligences.
If we dissect this case, it seems to revolve around two central questions: what constitutes 'public' data and to what extent can AI models leverage such data without infringing upon individual privacy. This lawsuit may well set a significant precedent in defining the boundaries of AI ethics and data privacy.
When this happened to Stable Diffusion, it was easy for me to consider it a necessary evil to progress humanity.<p>When this happens to closedAI, it just seems like a profit grab.<p>Not that it changes the legality of it. Just optics.<p>Wonder if that matters in court.
It’s okay, I’m sure everything is going to be fine when Microsoft and ChatGPT hot mic your next doctor appointment.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36498294">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36498294</a>
A tangential question...but does anyone know what software is used to generate legal documents that look like the PDF linked in the article? I’ve played with LaTeX templates a bit, but I seriously doubt law firms are futzing around with LaTeX for documents as complex as this. They must have some software that produces this formatting.
What I noticed is that the privacy setting which should prevent OpenAI to use my data for training purposes, was already deleted twice and I had to set it again. No idea what that means and if the data that I entered before I noticed that setting was gone is now being owned by OpenAI. Anyway, it is obvious that privacy is no priority to them. Also, it's known that YC companies are informally being told they should not worry about privacy while scaling up. Open AI is not a YC company, but its culture is definitely derived from it.
I am not a lawyer, just a Sysadmin; but with that said, the linked pdf of the complaint is absolutely fascinating to me. It's worth it (to me) for the list of resources it cites.
Do we think this is related to media platforms seemingly walling themselves off? Requiring accounts to view content, removing API access. It seems if they can silo data off and make it difficult to access at a large scale, then they are the gatekeeper of the data and can control usage and pricing.
We talk to a lot of companies and many want to start using generative AI but are afraid of litigation. As long as it is not clear on which data a given model has been trained and that it is explicitly licensed permissively by the owner you are not sure what can happen.<p>We are actually working on a tool to create billion-size free-to-use Creative Commons image datasets and prepare them for training models like Stable Diffusion. There is a blogpost about it here: <a href="https://blog.ml6.eu/ai-image-generation-without-copyright-infringement-a9901b64541c" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blog.ml6.eu/ai-image-generation-without-copyright-in...</a>
Rather than there being lawsuit after lawsuit of this sort, we wrote an op-ed this morning that says there should be a simple, compulsory licensing fee that AI companies pay to the public -- something we called the AI Dividend: <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/29/ai-pay-americans-data-00103648" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/29/ai-pay-ame...</a>
Only 3? They should go for the whole 10, and settle for 1.<p>Now that the gates are open, we'll probably be entering the "free money" cycle soon.
If anything major comes out of this, is probably EVEN MORE prompts and popups asking for permission to use your data. even with GDPR, data collection and sales never stopped, it just made things more annoying by transforming every webpage into a granular term of service to continue doing the same.<p>It isn't even turned off by default. Many sites just give you an "i accept" button or even if you want to manage the preferences, the "accept all choices" button is where the "confirm my choices" should be.<p>Bigger companies will just append this to their TOS and push it down the customer's throat. That if MS doesn't settle out of court and the case gets thrown together with any major oppositon to the data mining
Wow, I really don’t get it, if I were to memorize billions of pages worth of people’s private messages and medical records, then recited them live in the Internet, would that be a crime??