Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Monoranos t1_j6vy1lg wrote

I am the only one who finds it weird to make profits from what it seems to be stolen data from the whole humanity?

Edit: Well didn't think this was a controversial take. I feel like people juste choose to ignore the whole aspect of consent and ethics about your data.

The GDPR further clarifies the conditions for consent in Article 7: https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/

  1. Where processing is based on consent, the controller shall be able to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data.

  2. If the data subject’s consent is given in the context of a written declaration which also concerns other matters, the request for consent shall be presented in a manner which is clearly distinguishable from the other matters, in an intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language. Any part of such a declaration which constitutes an infringement of this Regulation shall not be binding.

  3. The data subject shall have the right to withdraw his or her consent at any time. The withdrawal of consent shall not affect the lawfulness of processing based on consent before its withdrawal. Prior to giving consent, the data subject shall be informed thereof. It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.

  4. When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether, inter alia, the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.

−33

E_Snap t1_j6w4skd wrote

So are we just collectively pretending that the terms and conditions of websites don’t exist? You put something up on somebody else’s server, 99% of the time it’s no longer yours to claim ownership of anymore.

15

Monoranos t1_j6xlf7p wrote

I understand your point, but it's important to consider the ethics of using data that was gathered without explicit consent or understanding of how it would be used. Just because it's technically allowed under terms and conditions, doesn't mean it's morally right. Companies have a responsibility to ensure that they use data in a responsible and ethical manner, rather than solely relying on the legality of the terms and conditions.

−1

[deleted] t1_j6wcxc9 wrote

Stolen from whom? This comment you posted doesn’t belong to you. Images you post on Instagram don’t belong to you.

Can you explain your thinking a bit more?

Or are you basically realizing how important SOPA was 7 years later, well into the next AI boom when the horse has very much left the barn?

Perhaps you are young and inexperienced in this domain — or both?

8

Monoranos t1_j6xny7i wrote

Also to respond to your "to young and inexperienced" was not necessary for this debate. it gives the impression that you just want to insult me which shows a lack of maturity.

And also, maybe you should keep up to date with the legality of this mather (GDPR: Explicit consent). But hey, maybe you're to old or ignorant in this domain — or both? :)

1

Monoranos t1_j6xlrzq wrote

While it is true that much of the data used to train these models is sourced from publicly available sources, it's also true that much of this data was generated by individuals who may not have been fully aware of the implications or intended uses of their contributions. The question of who owns this data and how it can be used is an important one, and it's understandable that some people might feel uncomfortable about the potential for profit to be made from it. It's important to have a conversation about ethical considerations in the development and deployment of large language models.

0

mr_birrd t1_j6x06eq wrote

You think the whole internet is free to run? Anyways, they don't use any of your data to train it.

2

Monoranos t1_j6xmoc2 wrote

I am not saying the whole internet is free to run but, using people's data without consent raises privacy and ethical concerns. Profiting from potentially stolen data raises questions about legality and morality.

1

mr_birrd t1_j6xo5qk wrote

No it doesn't raise ethical concerns. You literally have to agree about usage about your data and at least in Europe should be able to opt out of everything if you want. You should 100% know this, those are the rules of the game. Just cause you don't read the terms of agreements doesn't make it unethical for companies to read your data. Sure if you then use it for insurances that won't help you cause you will become sick w.h.p. that's another thing. But don't act surprised.

1

Monoranos t1_j6xp59x wrote

Just read my edit about the GDPR and explicit consent.

"in Europe should be able to opt out of everything if you want." Great point, I wonder how would OpenAI react if people want them to remove their data. Is it even possible ?

1

mr_birrd t1_j6xps33 wrote

Do you know the dataset is was trained on even?

1

Monoranos t1_j6xs7m3 wrote

I don't believe that they disclosed the data on which they trained chatGPT. If you know do you mind sharing ? :)

1

mr_birrd t1_j6xtb3u wrote

Edit: Chatgpt uses GPT3. Search the dataset it used.

Google it they have full transparency. If you find a text by yourself there maybe ask if they can remove it. First of all, the data is only used for stachastic gradient descent and the model has no idea about the content it read, it only can model probabilities of words, e.g. it learned to speak but it only speaks such that it mostly outputs what makes sence in a bayesian way.

So the model is already trained and it didn't even read all of the data, those huge models often only read each instance of sample once at maximum, since they learn that "well".

Also in the law text you wrote I understand it that if you opt out in the future, it doesn't make past data processing wrong. The model is already trained, so they don't have to remove anything.

They also mostly have a whole ethics chapter in their papers, maybe you go check it out. Ethics etc is not smth unknows and especially such big companies also have some people working on that in their teams.

1

Monoranos t1_j6xumt3 wrote

Even if they have full transparency it doesn't mean they are GDPR complient. I tried to look more into it but was not successfull.

1

mr_birrd t1_j6xvaec wrote

Well the thing is you aren't the first one to think about that. They do this for very long already and know that what they do is legal here. They would not waste millions in training it just to throw it away afterwards.

1

myrmil t1_j6xw2sq wrote

Yeah, they sure wouldn't Kappa

1

butter14 t1_j6y4rnd wrote

It essentially operates the same way as humans digesting content and then outputting content from the ingested data.

2