Enterprise Agreements can have binding terms for this. When I launch the ChatGPT desktop app, and open the options pane it says "Corpname data is not used for OpenAI training".
I would expect academic institutions to require equivalent contractual terms.
Some of the recent statements have caused at least me to look those claims in a bit more nuanced light. In particular what does OpenAI consider to be "your data"? I would assume input (prompt) to be it at least. However it becomes more murky when you consider other aspects. Is output "your data"? Is the chain of thought that you are not even allowed to see? Can they use these and possibly even inputs to generate synthetic data that is then used?
All of these would seem to be "your data", but when they are carefully only including certain aspects (like prompts) in their statements it starts to sound they want to hide something.
Exactly. We as users have zero way to confirm they are honoring even the letter of these agreements, much less the intent. And it's super easy for them to weasel around and find a way to cheat while still having a legal claim to honoring the contract. And if you've forgotten, all of these companies are built on a foundation of ignoring copyright law.
Agreed. It would actually be a fairly perverse argument to claim that most AI output is somehow NOT owned by the AI provider…
Why wouldn’t they claim ownership of the AI output? They likely already claim ownership of the “transformation” (AI training) of the (pirated) input data.
Sure but they could also rewrite your data to create synthetic reconstructions
and many academics, sign up for their own accounts.
For example, at school they can have an agreement with Gemini, but the student / academic could have bought an individual pro subscription to any other model provider.
Thing is... if OpenAI cannot even confidently say if some data was used for training or not, as their models and weights and stuff are mostly black boxes, how could you enforce or demonstrate in court that case?
About researchers, lots of them are probably using personal plans that aren't even reimbursed by their institutions. I could ask Cordova's research institution (I MAY) but I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case.
The open internet is now a cesspit, with very little new good data. Expect everyone to train on user data always. They just got clever about whitening it.
My university has an agreement with Microsoft copilot. We can log into copilot in many ways, and it's only if you log in the correct way that you get the "Enterprise Data Protection" copilot version, with a green shield symbol. There are many ways to go wrong here!
While we can quibble (and are) over the details of this particular occurrence, I'm beginning to take the opinion that used/rare booksellers need to implement some form of "KYC" to help guard against the epistemic threats posed by this practice.
The booksellers are probably so ecstatic to get some value out of books otherwise destined for the landfill that they wouldn't lift a finger for "epistemic threats".
Spiders are insectivores and have little to no interest in you. That's why I love them. When you have spiders, you don't have pesty insects, in the same way that when you have cats you don't have rodents.
As I recall (and not mentioned here) it's said that people have a lot of grey matter to be a good controller for the "arm/shoulder ballistics system," a detail which ended up out providing myriad other benefits.
I think about this often. The calculation of various projectiles, ranges, rotations, combined with an adaptable muscle memory of sorts can reach “Stan Lee Superhuman” levels with lots of practice.
It's been said that the most amazing engineering of the whole Shuttle program was the external fuel tank (and there is one with the static display of Endeavour here at the California Science Center in LA).
Considering they only shipped about every two years—I'm not kidding—so long as they keep the lights on, that's good enough for me. (I'll still look for a replacement, but I won't feel super rushed to switch away.)
I'd think that original creators such as J.K. Rowling, Steven Spielberg, Bruce Springsteen & Taylor Swift (among others) would be other members of the !evil bucket.
Taylor swift does seem to be using AI or something. I mean she's nice but not as nice as South park creators imo.
I have heard so much about Steven Spielberg but I must admit that I don't know much about the man but to me it does feel like you must be correct that he's a good guy, though I do see some controversies of steven spielberg on internet but South park is infamous with controversies as well.
There are 3028 billionaries from Forbes list and many many more almost-billionaires yet we have at most so few good billionaires that you can count them on your fingers.
I would expect academic institutions to require equivalent contractual terms.
reply