[HN Gopher] Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
___________________________________________________________________
Gpt4free repo given takedown notice by OpenAI
Author : freedmand
Score : 241 points
Date : 2023-04-28 13:08 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| mugivarra69 wrote:
| so dev has a proxy to inf instance of openai?
| jesprenj wrote:
| I made a mirror just in case: http://ni.4a.si/anonymous/gpt4free/
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/tree/7ef85f46716bb39f1e19...
| last commit before "we got a takedown" was in README
| lvncelot wrote:
| Thanks for the link, seems weird that they've nuked the rest of
| the README instead of just posting that update at the top.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| I wonder how long until GitHub acts on the DMCA? I am not
| familiar with the process.
|
| OpenAI issues DMCA to GitHub, GitHub passes it along to the
| user, user... has the right to ignore it and leave all of the
| content up and update the README with a poem?
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Github first disables the repo as soon as the report is
| received, and then waits for a response/appeal from the
| user before any further action is taken.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Why isn't this repo disabled then yet? They already
| appealed and... won? Or you just have to submit the
| appeal and they enable your repo again no matter what
| while the process plays out?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| DMCA counternotice isn't an appeal that someone has to
| judge. As soon as you send it to the provider, they can
| restore access without leaving the safe harbor (if you
| are infringing, you are still liable, but the host has
| fulfilled their safe harbor requirements.)
|
| But this may be some other C&D, the repo owner says they
| got a "takedown" without mentioning DMCA; there is no
| reason to assume this means Github got a DMCA notice.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| Guilty until proven innocent.
| sandis wrote:
| A lot of comments confuse this with a different repo. It has
| nothing to do with the name. This project is/was a way to use LLM
| APIs on someone else's dime. It's the equivalent of "S3 4 free"
| where someone would collect exposed AWS credentials and use them
| to store their stuff.
| charcircuit wrote:
| This isn't about exposed credentials though. It would be like
| an autmatic image uploder that could pick an image hosting site
| such as imgur and upload the image for you and give you a link.
| Services are offering the ability to host images for you. You
| aren't stealing imgur's s3 credentials. They just let any user
| upload images for free despite the fact it technically costs
| them money to host the file for you. Similarly there are sites
| offering the ability to serve LLM requests for you for free.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| No, the 1:1 analogy you're looking for is realizing someone
| has a poorly protected api.domain.com endpoint that uploads
| images to their S3 bucket and then using that to host your
| own images in their bucket instead of paying for your own.
|
| Gpt4free uses API vulnerabilities that ultimately proxy to
| OpenAI's API with someone else's OpenAI credentials so that
| you don't have to pay for it. That's the whole gimmick.
|
| These API endpoints aren't public service open relays which
| seems to be what you're trying to claim in your analogy:
|
| - https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/issues/153
|
| - https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/issues/125
| charcircuit wrote:
| >These API endpoints aren't public service open relays
| which seems to be what you're trying to claim in your
| analogy:
|
| The whole point of the project is that they are. It's a
| compilation of public, free APIs that have been found.
| Those issues you linked are from people who don't
| understand that it's expensive to run a free relay for a
| paid service.
| sreejithr wrote:
| No service allows you to upload to some other user's Imgur
| account. The services like the ones you mentioned usually
| provide a service and do it on the user's behalf to the
| user's account.
| charcircuit wrote:
| I am talking about not having an account. Anonymous users
| can call the API and have things done for them.
| can16358p wrote:
| I didn't know about this project. Thanks to the takedown notice
| I'll immediatelly clone it and start using it.
|
| Thank you OpenAI for playing a role in me finding an alternative!
| dcow wrote:
| Go for it, it's not a GPT4 alternative anyway. Just an
| confusingly named project that muddies the waters.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| It is literally GPT4. This is not the similarly named open
| source LLM "GPT4All."
|
| GPT4Free is an API reverse engineering and proxy project
| which exposes an API to use GPT4 by proxy through GPT4 based
| services like the search engine Phind.
|
| Essentially you are using the reverse engineered services
| OpenAI credits to access GPT4 instead of using your own
| OpenAI account.
| dcow wrote:
| Then these services need to model their threats with more
| sophistication. The existence of this project indicates
| there are security vulnerabilities in services that use
| OpenAI. In any case, I maintain that increased attention to
| this topic is a good thing rather than a bad thing, which
| is contrary to what GGP was suggesting when they referenced
| the Streisand effect.
| 64operator wrote:
| It's been taken down, how can you clone it? Anyway if anybody
| has links to a mirror that'd be great. Still wondering why
| people don't self-host.
| jesprenj wrote:
| A mirror I just made: http://ni.4a.si/anonymous/gpt4free/
|
| It's still available on github.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| It's still available, just cloned it.
| psychphysic wrote:
| To be honest I don't think they care about it being
| alternative.
|
| Just that people keep obnoxiously naming their projects after
| them for visibility.
|
| Imo this is exactly how this kind of polite takedown should be
| used. If it highlighted it to you great because at least you
| know for sure it's not OpenAIs product.
| tyingq wrote:
| I suppose, since the substring "gpt4" is there. But,
| "generative pre-trained transformer -> gpt" seems fair game.
| Other companies use that acronym, so there's "EinsteinGPT",
| "BloombergGPT", etc.
| overthrow wrote:
| GPT is a generic acronym - the wikipedia article writes it
| out in lowercase.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-
| trained_transfo...
|
| gpt4free means "gpt for free" and also predates GPT-4. I
| don't think it was meant to be obnoxious or cause confusion.
| psychphysic wrote:
| They should just call it FreeGPT that's what FreeBSD did.
| So did FreeNAS, FreePascal and FreeType.
|
| But it's clear and obvious to me that they saw GPT2 then
| GPT3 and thought well let's pun on it with GPT4.
|
| First line of the wiki you link
|
| > Generative pre-trained transformers (GPT) are a family of
| large language models (LLMs),[1][2] which was introduced in
| 2018 by the American artificial intelligence organization
| *OpenAI*
|
| Emphasis added.
| spookie wrote:
| I'm sorry but that doesn't track. There's no need to be
| this agressive.
| radarsat1 wrote:
| Digression, but why do they call it "pre-trained"? Don't
| they train it from scratch? Or is the point that _they_
| pretrain it and it 's intended only for downstream fine
| tuning ok specific tasks? If so, does ChatGPT use a fine-
| tuned version? Is the non-finetuned version good for
| anything on its own?
| blatant303 wrote:
| No. Thank YOU for giving me the idea of cloning that repo.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| not sure what's justifying the pearl-clutching here... they've
| openly stated they are basically repurposing actual ChatGPT APIs
| from openai through some "reverse engineered private APIs" --
| uhh..
| kernal wrote:
| Streisand effect engaged.
| jacquesm wrote:
| What are the chances of the conflict of interest (or lack
| thereof) between OpenAI/Microsoft/Github being an issue here? I'm
| kind of surprised they even bothered with a takedown request.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Looks like it was a "paywall bypass" for GPT-3.5/GPT-4 through
| vulnerable third parties. DMCA forbids access control
| circumvention, among other things, so seems like a takedown is
| expected.
| codedokode wrote:
| But isn't DMCA about protecting copyrighted content? And the
| copyright to ChatGPT responses must belong to the one who have
| asked a question because ChatGPT is just a tool. Whoever is
| using the tool should own the copyright on replies.
| numpad0 wrote:
| IANAL, not even US Person, but 17 USC ss 1201 (a)(1)(A)
| states: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure
| that effectively controls access to a work protected under
| this title. ...".
|
| Is "work" defined anywhere by law or by precedents? I just
| genuinely don't know. It seems to me that depending on that,
| the OpenAI API might be considered "work" just like a
| copyrighted manuscript. I'd also think there must be some
| other laws forbidding _hacking_ , but DMCA must have a fast
| track everywhere.
| glitchc wrote:
| Yes, and DMCA includes specific protections against breaking
| or circumventing locks that restrict access to copyrighted
| content.
| oli5679 wrote:
| Here is an interesting poem that the repo maintainer committed as
| a readme, incase anyone doesn't click the link:
| We got a takedown request by openai's legal team...
| here is a lil poem you can read in the meantime, while I am
| investigating it: A little boy sat, in his humble
| abode. He tinkered and toyed with devtools galore,
| And found himself curious, eager for more. He copy-
| pasted requests, with glee and delight, A personal
| project, to last him the night. For educational purposes,
| and fun it was too, This little boy's journey had just
| begun anew. Now far away, in a tower so grand,
| A big company stood, ruling the land. Their software was
| mighty, their power supreme, But they never expected this
| boy and his dream. As he played with their code,
| they started to fret, "What if he breaks it? What if
| we're upset?" They panicked and worried, their faces
| turned red, As visions of chaos danced in their head.
| The CEO paced in his office so wide, His minions all
| scurrying to hide. "Who is this child?" he cried out in
| fear, "Who dares to disrupt our digital sphere?"
| The developers gathered, their keyboards ablaze, To
| analyze the boy's mischievous ways. They studied his
| project, they pored through his code, And soon they
| discovered his humble abode. "We must stop him!"
| they cried with a shiver, "This little boy's making our
| company quiver!" So they plotted and schemed to halt his
| advance, To put an end to his digital dance.
| ( I did not write it ) discord:
| https://discord.com/gpt4free
| ziml77 wrote:
| It's a project that lets you piggyback off of others' ChatGPT API
| keys without their permission? If so, then it seems like it would
| violate both OpenAI's ToS as well as the ToS for any site that is
| being used as a proxy.
|
| And is this a DMCA takedown? It's not actually specified in the
| readme update and I would have thought that the repo would have
| been hidden by now if it was one. Plus I'm not sure what they'd
| be claiming copyright on here (the API maybe?)
| junon wrote:
| I mean... I know this isn't _legally_ the same, but OpenAI has
| sold a repackaged version of all of _our_ data, too.
| glitchc wrote:
| And any code you write is a repackaged version of the
| compiler. Spot the difference? Should the maker of the
| compiler claim ownership of your binary?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Just like all the code you write is just code you read
| elsewhere "repackaged". Ok sometimes you come up with what
| _seems_ to be novel code, but we all know really you 're just
| a sophisticated pattern matcher and you're just typing out
| the code you think is best at any given moment, based on
| everything you've seen and learnt from.
| tommek4077 wrote:
| Why would you put something like this on github? Are there no
| "Hacker" forums anymore?
| [deleted]
| neom wrote:
| Alright but we don't know enough here to evaluate the legitimacy
| of the request from OpenAI. Very little to go on.
| verdverm wrote:
| Given the relationship between MS, GitHub, and OpenAI, do we
| think there will be a fair analysis or review? Is GitHub still
| independent enough or not?
| neom wrote:
| We don't even know what type of takedown request they
| received my friend. There are many ways to legally request
| removal, the linked page explains nothing. Who knows what's
| going on based on the current information.
| danwee wrote:
| Does it really matter? Microsoft owns GitHub, and unofficially
| owns OpenAI, so MS can do whatever they want with their toys.
| [deleted]
| zeven7 wrote:
| Predictable. You could just come up with an original name and be
| fine. "GPT4" obviously means the OpenAI product to people.
|
| For those ootl, here's the previous thread where OP was given a
| lot of advice from the HN community to change the name
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35608437
| dcow wrote:
| Yep. It's an affinity scam. It has nothing to do with GPT4.
| IIRC it's just some model with a GPT-like interface offered
| _for_ free. Once they change their name to something that isn
| 't trying to catch GPT4's sails in an completely dishonest and
| scummy manner, we can discuss it further.
|
| To the CrabLang folks,: this is why you care about trademarks.
| So when someone does this you can protect your project from
| scammers.
|
| EDIT I might be conflating GPT4all with this... which doesn't
| make the situation any better and kinda proves my point. This
| type of scam is confusing and deceptive. And this one seems
| actively malignant.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| >this is why you care about trademarks
|
| Yes but often FOSS projects and their developers do not have
| the money or desire to: enforce any trademark or license,
| apply for the trademark itself, or market the trademark in
| any meaningful way.
| dcow wrote:
| I should have said (to the CrabLang folks): this is why the
| _Rust foundation_ cares about trademarks.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| The DMCA is not applicable to trademarks.
|
| https://theholmesfirm.com/takedown-notices-why-trademarks-
| an...
| htareque wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but these seem like two different
| projects: gpt4all and gpt4free, by different people.
| zeven7 wrote:
| Ah, I didn't realize it was a different project. Either way,
| it seems like they share the same problem.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| You are correct. This is not the similarly named open source
| LLM "GPT4All."
|
| GPT4Free is an API reverse engineering and proxy project
| which exposes an API to use the real GPT4 by proxy through
| GPT4 based services like the search engine Phind.
| seydor wrote:
| This is not the outrage you re looking for, move along.
|
| And developers can use their time much more productively to
| improve one of the many open source alternativez
| supermatt wrote:
| Not to be confused with gpt4all https://github.com/nomic-
| ai/gpt4all which is a "free" GPT LLM.
|
| It seems this gpt4free was basically hijacking 3rd parties
| services that use GPT-4, bypassing the official OpenAI APIs in
| order to avoid paying for inference. Of course, that means that
| the hijacked 3rd parties are the ones footing the bill...
|
| I'm not surprised they have been issued a takedown notice.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| It's not clear to me that DMCA Takedown is an applicable legal
| process for that, but I guess when does that ever stop anyone
| these days.
|
| What specific US laws do folks think that repo (or
| running/using the software in that repo) might have been
| violating? (I agree it seems likely that it's _some_ law, I'm
| not challenging that just asking if anyone has a legal analysis
| they want to share).
| bjornsing wrote:
| Fraud?
| dcow wrote:
| Yeah what's curious to me is why OpenAI has grounds here vs
| [the abused 3rd parties]. Maybe they are trying to stand up
| for the people using their API as a courtesy because they
| want them to stay in business or something, but it seems the
| damaged parties are the 3rd party services bankrolling the
| access, and so they'd need to pursue legal action and/or
| patch their services.
|
| I do imagine OpenAI has something in their terms where you're
| not allowed to use their APIs unless you agree to their
| terms, which includes payment and not using other accounts
| than your own (fraud). So maybe that's it?
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| CFAA[0] is one that comes to mind but I also think that has
| different issues with _what might be_ overly vague
| terminology. It at least seems more applicable to this,
| though I am certainly not a legal expert.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
| henryfjordan wrote:
| There was a somewhat recent supreme court ruling that said
| just breaking some ToS is not a CFAA violation. Unless the
| gpt4free repo had straight up stolen credentials the CFAA
| shouldn't apply.
| heyyyouu wrote:
| It's an excellent point. DMCA is for copyright. My take (I
| have a background in this area but IANAL): I think they can
| get away with the copyright because of the name/content usage
| (no one of the opposite end of the request is going to
| question that, it seems obvious), but I think it's clear to
| those in the know that's not WHY they went after this one.
|
| In theory, they could probably use DCMA to go after anyone
| using the terms (right or wrong). In practicality, they used
| it as a tool to go after this particular one because they
| didn't like what they were doing.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| DMCA covers circumvention devices, not just directly
| infringing material.
| l33t233372 wrote:
| See for example, the group arrested for selling devices
| that allowed people to take control of their own Nintendo
| Switch systems[1].
|
| Although, after digging into the story, it looks like
| they may have also operated an illicit app store
| containing cracked IPs, so that situation is a little
| murky.
|
| [1] https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2023/04/nintendo-
| hacker-ga...
| ronsor wrote:
| I think jailbreaking is a current exception to the DMCA
| (according to the copyright office's latest report). An
| app store full of cracked games is obviously illegal,
| though.
| 0xDEF wrote:
| They should be happy that OpenAI went after them with the
| DMCA and not for computer hacking and fraud, which is what
| they technically did by hijacking other people's API keys.
| bhaney wrote:
| Does "takedown notice" automatically equal "DMCA"? The repo
| itself and the parent to your comment don't mention DMCA at
| all.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Hm, good point, I think of "takedown notice" as being about
| the DMCA, because I never heard that term at all before the
| DMCA, I think of it as a term of art from DMCA. But people
| could be using it differently or mis-using it.
|
| However, this is on Github. Github specifically has a "DMCA
| Takedown Policy" [1]. I don't believe they have any other
| policy or procedure involving a "takedown notice". But
| sure, I could be wrong, or the notice on the repo could be
| not quite right about what's going on.
|
| Other companies, even big ones, will just take down
| anything a big corporation asks them to, with no written
| policy or a written policy basically saying that's what
| they'll do, while using language implying the DMCA (like
| "takedown notice"), when that's not what they're doing at
| all. But Github has actually been pretty good at actually
| doing this according to the procedure spelled out in DMCA,
| and not just randomly for whatever another big corporation
| might want. And being clear about what they're doing why if
| they're doing something else.
|
| [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-
| polic...
| mkishi wrote:
| From the submission (the repo's readme):
|
| > We got a takedown request by openai's legal team...
|
| Did Github take a separate action somewhere?
| glitchc wrote:
| A lawyer must have advised this, as financial fraud likely
| has a higher burden of proof. They might still proceed with
| criminal charges (if a DA agrees) or a lawsuit.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > Of course, that means that the hijacked 3rd parties are the
| ones footing the bill...
|
| A bit like we are footing the bill for openai's training data.
| jamesjuicy55 wrote:
| [flagged]
| mock-possum wrote:
| who's 'we,' white man? I've never been billed.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > white man?
|
| Eh?
|
| > I've never been billed.
|
| Curious how much people's bills are inflated by ai crawlers
| constantly sucking their data and how much in revenue is
| lost since traffic is not brought to their websites. And
| since there's no way to stop this theft, since most of them
| don't honor robots.txt, people are forced to remove
| content. Perhaps those charged for bandwidth are losing
| some dime right now.
| jsnell wrote:
| > Eh?
|
| It's the punchline of a vaguely racist old joke involving
| Lone Ranger and Tonto. I have to admit that I also often
| think of when somebody uses "we" inappropriately to make
| their opinion or experience appear universal.
|
| (But as seen here, you can't really just drop the
| punchline into a conversation.)
| [deleted]
| ivalm wrote:
| They are providing a service, we pay for it, and they
| reinvest in improving the service. That's the basic business
| practice.
| dubcanada wrote:
| I think you missed the memo of the comment.
|
| They were referring to the fact that everything ChatGPT is
| built on is other peoples work. Beyond the actual building
| of the model details, there is nothing that ChatGPT owns.
| All the content they use to train, all of the art they use
| to train. Everything is stolen/used without permission.
| Obviously there is more to it than that, because you
| published it on the internet. But that's a different topic.
| glitchc wrote:
| This is an incorrect and unfair statement that would not
| pass the test in any court of law. ChatGPT uniquely
| orders information in a way that gives them a competitive
| advantage in the marketplace. While the source
| information is public, the ordering of it is proprietary
| and a trade secret.
|
| Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum to "everything is
| made of atoms and no one ones atoms, ergo no one owns
| anything."
| mcguire wrote:
| The source information in public? Copyright isn't a thing
| anymore?
|
| That's news to me.
| glitchc wrote:
| If you think ChatGPT has infringed on your copyright, you
| have legal recourse. Do you have evidence?
| Kiro wrote:
| Imagine considering your random posts on reddit "work"
| and thinking people are stealing it when they train their
| models on your internet drivel.
| msla wrote:
| So it's valueless when the original author wants it to
| have value and valuable when OpenAI wants it to have
| value?
|
| I am all for training AIs, but at least exhibit some
| self-consistency in your arguments!
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| A penny is close to valueless. A trillion pennies is a
| lot of value.
| salad-tycoon wrote:
| All the misguided comments of my younger years coming to
| haunt me? Nightmare. Luckily I deleted my live journal
| many moons ago.
| px43 wrote:
| Everything that anyone has ever built is built on the
| works of others. This is how we progress as a species.
| The entire reason why the internet is so revolutionary is
| that it allows for permissionless innovation.
| vkou wrote:
| Then OpenAI should allow us to do some permissionless
| innovation on their work.
|
| Strangly enough, it's only interested in promoting
| permissionless innovation when it stands to profit. It
| plunders the commons, and gives nothing unencumbered
| back.
| dubcanada wrote:
| I am in no way suggesting that it is wrong. I do however
| feel this level of "built upon the work of others" is
| different.
| whitepaint wrote:
| Right, so what's the problem with gpt4free then?
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| They're consuming real electricity and real time on
| servers that don't belong to them nor do they have
| permission to use.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Do you see the contradiction here ?
|
| ChatGPT-4 is built on real peoples time.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Conveniently ignoring the 'real electricity' part doesn't
| help your case.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| This litany is already getting old and it's just 2 month
| in.
|
| All intellectual property is inherently stolen. Just let
| it go.
| cmdialog wrote:
| I wonder how large the Venn overlap is for people who
| think IP is good and people who don't think hip hop is
| "real music"?
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Two months? The (ai-luddite) preachers have been reciting
| this litany since the first decent diffusion models
| released over a year ago. They haven't slowed down any.
| cormacrelf wrote:
| The reason intellectual property was invented was to
| encourage people to go and create new things and share
| them, the logic being that having a monopoly on your own
| work by default means you can make money from being
| creative and therefore people will choose to do it. The
| reverse is already happening, people are deciding
| (privately) not to publish things they have created
| because they rightly assume it will be stolen by an AI,
| monetised and used to destroy their own job. It is not
| merely complaining for its own sake. There is a good
| amount of theft and a bad amount of theft. As theft
| increases unchecked the amount of new output is poised to
| decline.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| All true.
|
| I don't see any world where it matters in the slightest.
| When it comes to how we deal with currently available
| training data nothing will change, first because of
| politics but also because people want the LLMs superpower
| more than they want to protect IP of a few individuals.
| And I firmly believe that no human training data that has
| not been produced and publishes today will play any
| significant role in future AI development.
|
| We are simply too slow.
| chefandy wrote:
| The topic's biggest cop-out. Intellectual property
| doesn't exist in a vacuum. I have limited-to-zero
| sympathy for corporate entities like Getty images that
| hoard IP, but our society's social contract says labor
| isn't free unless people donate it. We need to
| _implement_ some sort of alternate compensation system
| _before_ entirely disregarding IP so we don 't pull the
| rug out from under perfectly honest independent creatives
| with kids and mortgages and medical bills plying their
| craft in an established system. Until then, taking the
| fruits of creative labor without permission is theft that
| is _much more consequential and much less morally
| defensible_ than what you describe.
|
| I'll bet if someone outside of our IP jurisdiction
| figured out a way to reliably and thoroughly reverse
| engineer the most complex commercial software from
| binaries so people could spit out a working, fully-
| customized copy of a commercial application from a
| prompt, and the entirety of the software development
| market would soon collapse, the tenor of this
| conversation would be very different.
|
| Maybe the people with the very ethically defensible
| stance that private property is theft would be totally
| fine with OpenAI knocking down your home to build their
| new headquarters without compensating you? Imagine the
| progress! ( _hint: they probably wouldn 't be ok with
| it_)
|
| _None_ of this stuff exists in a vacuum. _None of it._
| jstummbillig wrote:
| You are right, the (potential) negative impact AI
| training has on what people do will only manifest in the
| future.
|
| But no matter how I or anyone else feel about the car or
| how bad it is for the environment, or how much we dislike
| the noise they impose on us, it's simply not going to
| bring back the horse.
|
| There just is no conceivable future. It's dead.
| chefandy wrote:
| Another cop-out. No, the horse isn't dead. This
| technology is at its precipice and society outside of the
| tech world _hasn 't even started to react yet_ let alone
| develop entrenched immutable norms surrounding it. A good
| portion of what these algorithms put out isn't even
| particularly commercially useful... yet. There's a lot of
| time to change policy, to change corporate norms, to
| change compensation structures, and to change
| perspectives. Just because you find that prospect
| inconvenient compared to just throwing up your hands and
| saying _fuck it,_ likely because you benefit from doing
| so, doesn 't mean that you don't have a moral obligation
| to reduce the harm these behaviors will result in.
|
| Beyond that, the technology is just the catalyst. It's a
| tool. The problem is what people are doing with it.
| That's an ongoing behavior that can be changed-- not a
| bell you can't un-ring.
|
| I won't claim to know what's in your head, but most
| people I've encountered who rebuff complex topics with
| idealistic platitudes don't really think the topics are
| that simple. They're avoiding confronting the negative
| consequences of a behavior they have no intention of
| changing to avoid damaging their moral self-image.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Sigh, alright. Copping out of this one I guess.
| devmor wrote:
| That's all great until people stop providing intellectual
| property for free because of the chilling effects.
|
| Artists are already starting to completely paywall their
| content.
|
| How far do we let AI scraping and incorporation go? Just
| say "fuck it" until there's nothing left to scrape other
| than content also made by AI?
| welshwelsh wrote:
| "chilling effects" usually refers to when people decide
| not to share things because of potential legal
| consequences. For example, if people stop creating or
| distributing AI art because they don't want to be sued by
| artists for using their style, that's a chilling effect.
| Basically the opposite of what you are describing
|
| >Just say 'fuck it' until there's nothing left to scrape
| other than content also made by AI?
|
| Sounds good to me! There will always be people making
| free art, and AI will make this much easier.
|
| The thing that I think people are missing is that AI-
| generated content CAN be used to improve AI models. There
| is no requirement that the input data is created without
| AI.
|
| Furthermore, AI-generated content on the internet is not
| random; it is _curated_ content. Generally speaking
| people don 't post every image they generate with Stable
| Diffusion, they only post the best images. If you
| consider engagement metrics and user feedback (upvotes
| etc), they can be a valuable and useful part of a
| training set.
| devmor wrote:
| The fact that you think that sounds good and is not a
| bleak and dystopian hellscape tells me that your ideal
| future is likely my nightmare scenario.
|
| I fear our views on this issue are wholly incompatible.
| smoldesu wrote:
| If we enforced intellectual property rights that harshly,
| nothing more complex than a 6502 would have ever been
| made.
| dubcanada wrote:
| I personally don't think IP has a place in modern
| society. But I was mostly replying to the authors
| comment.
|
| My concerns mostly lie with the fact it's owned largely
| by $MSFT rather than a more "open source" contributing to
| society entity. But again that's a much different topic.
| devmor wrote:
| I'd say IP is more important in modern society than at
| any time in history.
|
| It _shouldn 't_ have a place, but so long as people
| require the ownership of their own concepts to gain food
| and shelter, it has to.
| dcow wrote:
| I'm sorry but you can't honestly use _stolen without
| permission_ here. If you publish something and someone
| else acquires it legally (because you published it for
| free or because they paid for or otherwise obtained a
| license to it) then you don 't get to control how the
| work is used after the fact. You only control the terms
| of them receiving a copy. You can't say "I didn't want my
| work used for AI training data when I published it so
| it's all stolen as far as I'm concerned". It just doesn't
| work that way.
|
| Now that doesn't mean you can't license your work for
| exclusive use by humans and explicitly forbid AI training
| data in the license applied to your work, but you'd have
| to do that when you publish it, not retroactively.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Block access if you don't want them to access your data. No
| bills created.
|
| However, if AI ends up being as mainstream as the average HN
| user is claiming, are you sure you aren't shooting yourself
| in the foot to not have your brand and product info not
| included in that data set if it replaces search engines?
|
| Is it any different from a Google crawler? They put ads on
| your content on the SERPs after crawling it.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Google drives traffic to your website, and generates
| revenue. It also respects IP and gives credit. Ai crawlers
| don't. Just because content is out in the open it doesn't
| mean there's no license to follow when using it. If they
| gave credit, respected IP and drove traffic then sure.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| Why is OpenAI getting involved? They are getting paid either
| way. The third parties should do the takedown if they are not
| happy about their endpoint being scraped.
| drusepth wrote:
| Presumably, they're looking out for their paying users (see:
| they want to keep those paying users), who would have a
| terrible experience if and when they found out someone else
| had been using their APIs and/or API keys.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Doesn't the DMCA have an exception for reverse engineering if
| it's for the purposes of compatibility with other programs?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The bigger issue is that none of the things here is a copyright
| protection mechanism within the scope of the DMCA to start
| with, so the DMCA doesn't even apply.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Yes, but it's not that simple: What
| Exceptions Does DMCA Section 1201 Have To Allow Reverse
| Engineering? Section 1201 contains an exception
| for reverse engineering, as well as security research,
| encryption research, and the distribution of security
| tools, all of which may support reverse engineering.
| However, these exceptions are drafted very narrowly. If
| your research might implicate section 1201, consult a
| lawyer to see if you can do your work in a way that is
| allowed by one of the relevant exceptions or by an
| exemption periodically granted by the Copyright Office.
| The following factors are relevant to whether you are
| entitled to a reverse engineering, research or security
| exception. However, meeting any or all of these factors
| will not necessarily protect your work. The list is
| offered just to give you an idea of the kinds of things
| that distinguish permissible from impermissible reverse
| engineering: You lawfully obtained the
| right to use a computer program;
| You disclosed the information you obtained in a good
| faith manner that did not enable or promote
| copyright infringement or computer fraud; Your
| sole purpose in circumventing is identifying and
| analyzing parts of the program needed to achieve
| interoperability; The reverse engineering will
| reveal information necessary to achieve
| interoperability; Any interoperable program
| you created as a result of the reverse engineering
| is non-infringing; You have authorization from
| the owner or operator of the reverse engineered
| software or the protected computer system to do
| your research; You are engaged in a legitimate
| course of study, are employed, or are appropriately
| trained or experienced, in the field of encryption
| technology. You provide timely notice of your
| findings to the copyright owner.
|
| https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq#fa...
| unaindz wrote:
| You can follow our instructions to try and appease the powers
| that be but we deserve the right to ignore our rules and go
| after you anyways. We are the Law.
| squarefoot wrote:
| There is a similar but less restrictive exemption in Europe,
| specifically aimed at permitting interoperability.
|
| https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
| content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A...
|
| On the other hand, it contains some traps that can be used to
| put some limits back in, such as the last lines here:
| (emphasis mine)
|
| "(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation
| or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of
| a computer program has been made available constitutes an
| infringement of the exclusive rights of the author.
| Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a
| reproduction of the code and translation of its form are
| indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve
| the interoperability of an independently created program with
| other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in
| these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of
| reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person
| having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and
| compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed
| not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An
| objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect
| all components of a computer system, including those of
| different manufacturers, so that they can work together.
| _Such an exception to the author 's exclusive rights may not
| be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of
| the rightholder_ or which conflicts with a normal
| exploitation of the program."
| greenie_beans wrote:
| is openai encouraging people to reuse the "gpt" acronym for the
| apps built with their api? seems like a bad idea from a branding
| POV.
| withinrafael wrote:
| Are they really _private_ APIs if they are accessible to the
| public in some form that can be reverse engineered?
| mden wrote:
| Is the gas in the car you parked publicly really yours
| ("private") if there is a way to siphon it out?
|
| Just because there is a way to obtain a resource doesn't make
| it yours automatically..
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Bit like everyone's code that's used to train ChatGPT
| RobotToaster wrote:
| An API is a publicly available service.
|
| It's more like having a tap with a sign over it saying "free
| gas", then getting mad when people use it.
| snet0 wrote:
| It's more like having "free gas for people staying at this
| motel".
| [deleted]
| RoyGBivCap wrote:
| No real world analogy applies when the service is publicly
| accessible via the internet.
| Bellamy wrote:
| If you leave a door open to your garden or house, can I
| come and chill without asking?
| Veen wrote:
| These analogies don't work. Sending a bunch of data to a
| computer and receiving a bunch of data in return is in no
| way analogous to physically entering private property
| without permission. They are not the same thing, or the
| same order of thing, or at all comparable.
| dagss wrote:
| The only "real" thing about either of those 2 cases is
| social conventions.
|
| Is is entirely impossible to imagine a culture where
| walking unbidden into private property is very normal but
| pinging someone electronically without a common
| understanding is an intrusion?
| junon wrote:
| Exactly. This is ytdownloader all over again.
| rhyme-boss wrote:
| Did their discord get taken down already? The link from the repo
| 404s.
| btbuildem wrote:
| I just cloned it, seems fine.
| rhyme-boss wrote:
| You cloned the discord?
| transitivebs wrote:
| we're discussing this in https://www.chatgpthackers.dev discord
| tinyhouse wrote:
| That's good. It's not the wild wild west here.
| transitivebs wrote:
| I was also given a takedown notice by OpenAI for the ChatGPT
| twitter bot github repo: https://github.com/transitive-
| bullshit/chatgpt-twitter-bot
|
| This was ~2 months ago, and I'm fortunate enough to have a direct
| contact at OpenAI who I complained to. He came back promptly and
| told me it was a mistake and the takedown notice was retracted. I
| also changed the twitter bot's logo to be purple instead of green
| to avoid future issues.
| xtekky wrote:
| Hi, would you able to contact me on discord? tekky#1810 I am
| looking for a solution.
| rolph wrote:
| phind.com takedown request #153
|
| https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/issues/153
|
| ora.sh takedown request #125
|
| https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/issues/125
| baptiste313 wrote:
| In case the repository disappears I share an archive of it
| https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/revision/7ef85f4...
| rwl4 wrote:
| This project is designed to allow people to use ChatGPT via
| reversed engineered private APIs. It's not surprising they went
| after this.
|
| Here's the project description from the README:
| Have you ever come across some amazing projects that you couldn't
| use just because you didn't have an OpenAI API key?
| We've got you covered! This repository offers reverse-engineered
| third-party APIs for GPT-4/3.5, sourced from various websites.
| You can simply download this repository, and use the available
| modules, which are designed to be used just like OpenAI's
| official package. Unleash ChatGPT's potential for your projects,
| now! You are welcome ; ).
|
| Source:
| https://github.com/xtekky/gpt4free/blob/6719bee133ce8202129e...
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >projects that you couldn't use just because you didn't have an
| OpenAI API key?
|
| It's amazing how the repo phrases this like "having an OpenAI
| API key" is something that's gatekept, rather than something
| you get by making a free account. (You may not be able to use
| it, but the more honest phrasing of "don't want to pay for your
| own API usage" is apparently too transparent for what this is
| offering.)
| spookie wrote:
| If they've actually reverse engineered I see no reason in this
| going anywhere.
| codedokode wrote:
| How does using private APIs violate copyright?
| nicce wrote:
| Not copyright but illegal data access and service use.
| Veen wrote:
| In exactly what respect is it illegal. Keeping in mind that
| "not complying with a corporation's policies" is not the
| same as breaking the law.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| > Keeping in mind that "not complying with a
| corporation's policies" is not the same as breaking the
| law.
|
| Actually, the law says that the Terms of Service is a
| legally-binding contract unless you can prove any
| provision is legally considered unconscionable. However,
| if that happens, all provisions except that provision
| still bind. It _is_ illegal to break a legally-binding
| contract, and you can be sued or taken to arbitration at
| a minimum in a civil court for "breach of contract." And
| that's before any Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or Digital
| Millennium Copyright Act violations.
|
| Yes, corporations don't sue users for "breach of
| contract" almost... ever. It's expensive, risky, has low
| compensation for doing so, and is just bad PR. But they
| legally always can.
| Veen wrote:
| I'm assuming the users of Gpt4free haven't signed up to
| OpenAI's terms and conditions, even if they do contain
| language prohibiting use of these private APIs. A
| corporation can't unilaterally impose their TOS on the
| entire population (or, at least, one would hope they
| can't).
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| In that case though, let's say OpenAI decided to enforce
| their Terms of Use by potentially suing. The defendant
| would likely have to show, whether he likes it or not,
| that he never once signed up for ChatGPT, never once
| signed up for the official OpenAI API, and managed to
| perfectly reverse-engineer the API from the outside.
| Seems unlikely to me.
|
| But then of course... CFAA and DMCA. The DMCA in
| particular, for example, doesn't consider the strength of
| the lock in the criminality. DVDs can be cracked with 7
| lines of Perl since 2001, but it's still a DMCA
| violation.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The defendant would likely have to show, whether he
| likes it or not, that he never once signed up for
| ChatGPT, never once signed up for the official OpenAI
| API, and managed to perfectly reverse-engineer the API
| from the outside.
|
| These aren't reverse engineering the OpenAI API, they are
| reverse engineering the APIs of public services that in
| turn call the OpenAI API.
|
| I'm not sure under what theory OpenAI would even sue.
|
| > But then of course... CFAA and DMCA. The DMCA in
| particular, for example, doesn't consider the strength of
| the lock in the criminality.
|
| The DMCA only applies to technology addressing
| copyrights, and CFAA seems inapplicable to consuming the
| backend APIs used by publicly accessible services because
| that's just use of authorized access by a different
| manner, outside of CFAA scope under the _Van Buren_
| precedent.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Actually, the law says that the Terms of Service is a
| legally-binding contract unless you can prove any
| provision is legally considered unconscionable
|
| No, it doesn't.
|
| It says they can state the terms of a contract if _all_
| the requirements of contract formation have been met,
| which are more than just the absence of unconscionable
| terms.
| hedora wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Ac
| t
| RoyGBivCap wrote:
| I remember when this passed and thinking that it was all
| the big, incompetent businesses that can afford lawyers
| on retainer making sure that only big businesses that can
| afford lawyers on retainer maintain their position of
| superior power over individuals. Snuffing out any hope
| that the little guy - who through sheer talent - can do
| things on this incredible newfangled equalizing
| innovation called the Internet will finally have some
| real chance at power.
|
| Bank of America used it to make people who simply changed
| the account number in their URL bar the criminals instead
| of them, who were completely incompetent at securing
| access to their customer's accounts. What previously
| would have been arguably _criminal_ negligence.
|
| It placed intent above competence - _but only for those
| who can afford lawyers._
|
| And here it is again, being abused the same way.
|
| Hot take: It should be repealed completely.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Assuming that those third-party services are ones that
| the public can access via their own web interfaces, such
| that the only thing unauthorized is the _manner_ in which
| the APIs are consumed, this would seem (unless I am
| missing more specific precedent) to fall out of CFAA
| coverage as a result of the _Van Buren v. United States_
| decision.
| from wrote:
| I remember seeing "Help: FBI criminally charged me with
| $6MM loss for hotlinking. I didn't do it" on HN earlier
| this year
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30589489). Was this
| person lying?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| There is no indication of what the charge was, and
| usually with hotlinking to an asset the legal issue is
| copyright infringement (which can be criminal as well as
| civil); that's very different from suggesting that use of
| an API endpoint intended to be used by a public web
| frontend is a CFAA violation.
| llamataboot wrote:
| I often wondered what the full story behind that one has
| as OP never posted in it again and never heard a peep in
| any sort of media story
| chii wrote:
| It's still trespassing if the private property owner did
| not invite you in, even if there wasn't a locked door.
| leothecool wrote:
| Is it still trespassing if you ask to be let in, and the
| butler lets you in when he's not supposed to?
| djbusby wrote:
| Yep.
| circuit10 wrote:
| If you trick the butler into letting you in by lying when
| you are aware that the home owner doesn't want you there
| then probably
| cardosof wrote:
| If someone I didn't grant access broke (in a very smart
| way) into my house, turned on the lights for a minute and
| then left, I'd still be pissed and would call it illegal.
| Veen wrote:
| The situations aren't really comparable. We're talking
| about sending a request from a computer to a publicly
| available API endpoint that Open AI would rather you
| didn't, and then using the data that endpoint sends in
| response.
|
| (Somewhat tangential, the "networks as a 3D space you
| travel around in with locations you visit" analogy does
| more harm than good. It's not what's happening and it
| results in muddled thinking.)
| cardosof wrote:
| I don't disagree your second paragraph, I'm just curious
| - can you elaborate more on why is that?
| minhazm wrote:
| Something being accessible does not mean you're
| authorized to access it. Someones house being unlocked
| doesn't mean it's okay for you to enter. Authorization is
| the key part here and you likely can be convicted under
| the CFAA[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abus
| e_Act
| ke88y wrote:
| This is almost certainly an instance of Unauthorized Use
| under the CFAA and therefore criminal in the USA and any
| jurisdictions with similarly broad anti-hacking laws.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| If those are APIs consumed by public sites, then they are
| APIs the public is authorized to use by way of those
| sites, and _Van Buren v. United States_ says that if you
| are authorized to access a system, accessing it a
| different "manner or circumstances" is not "unauthorized"
| as that term is used in the CFAA.
| numlock86 wrote:
| What part of "private API" is the one you don't
| understand? We could elaborate.
| berkle4455 wrote:
| These are the exact same "private API"s your browser
| utilizes when visiting chat.openai.com and require your
| own API keys granted to you by OpenAI.
|
| Calling it illegal is utterly insane. It's just a
| different user-agent and they'd prefer people use their
| official ones. OpenAI literally controls the keys so if
| they don't want someone using an alternate mechanism,
| they can and will just ban the account.
| Veen wrote:
| I wasn't aware companies could, by fiat, declare certain
| publicly available endpoints private, thereby compelling
| everyone by force of law to pretend they don't exist.
| s17n wrote:
| They can. Now you know.
| Veen wrote:
| So, if I create a cat GIF API, but announce that it's a
| private cat GIF API only I am allowed to use, I can sue
| anyone else who uses it to retrieve a cat GIF?
| [deleted]
| drusepth wrote:
| Legally and literally: yes.
|
| Knowingly using a private API without authorization can
| fall under CFAA, contract law, copyright law, trespass to
| chattel, etc -- and you can issue a C&D and/or sue for
| whatever is relevant.
| woogley wrote:
| People have gone to prison over guessable GET parameters
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security#AT&T/iPad_e
| mai...
|
| https://www.praetorianprefect.com/2010/06/114000-ipad-
| owners...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Citing convictions overturned on appeal probably isn't
| the strongest evidence of illegality. (Because they were
| overturned on threshold issues that didn't involve
| inquiry into the substantive merits of the charges, its
| not evidence _against_ illegality, either, but...)
| woogley wrote:
| My point is people have gone to prison over GET
| parameters, not the legality of the it. DOJ has CFAA.
| Abusing private APIs is flying close to the sun. Even if
| you do get out of prison eventually
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > My point is people have gone to prison over GET
| parameters, not the legality of the it. DOJ has CFAA.
|
| And CFAA is limited by _Van Buren_.
| spzb wrote:
| My bank's website is publicly available. That doesn't
| mean anyone is free to access my bank account. Just
| 'cause something is accessible on the internet doesn't
| mean you have the right to access it. Case law and
| statute goes back at least to the 1980s on this point.
| berkle4455 wrote:
| The aforementioned tools do nothing whatsoever to grant
| to access accounts which aren't theirs.
| spzb wrote:
| I know. That's not what I said.
| [deleted]
| conradev wrote:
| Releasing code to use undocumented APIs is speech, and is
| regulated as such
|
| You have to run the code to violate the terms of use, which is
| primarily used to bar you from the service for misusing it.
| glitchc wrote:
| If the code in any way includes private API keys, or
| circumvents protections on another entity's private API keys,
| then this is intellectual theft and punishable by the law.
| I'm willing to bet that without those private keys, the repo
| is worthless.
| llamataboot wrote:
| it doesn't contain private keys, arguably it contains
| irresponsible disclosures of various ways some large API
| users can predictably get their keys hijacked
| [deleted]
| j-krieger wrote:
| Time and time again.
|
| You are protected in your speech _from the government_.
| Commercial law does and will still apply. Arbitrary company
| decisions happen all the time, and GitHub makes it clear that
| they won't refrain from deleting repos for whatever reason.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You are protected in your speech from the government.
| Commercial law
|
| ...is the government.
| kennywinker wrote:
| Not sure if that distinction applies here. I understand
| that the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from a company
| refusing to publish what you've said - that makes sense.
| But this is a case of a company attempting to use
| commercial law (created by the government) to cause someone
| else to stop their speech. That seems like a simple
| violation of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an
| establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
| thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
|
| But idk because i'm not a lawyer and we have copyright and
| ip laws so clearly congress can pass SOME laws that
| prohibit speech. Free speech absolutism is weird to me
| bee_rider wrote:
| In this case, it is really GitHub's company policy which
| is being applied, right? They aren't required to host
| anything in general, and they have a policy of taking
| down repos based on their interpretation of the DMCA, or
| some similar law (which might be a misinterpretation).
| [deleted]
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Well that's not correct.
|
| You are actually very protected in documenting security
| flaws, and even republishing them.
|
| I am unsure of who you think enforces laws... as far as I
| know OpenAI doesn't have their own police force yet.
|
| They can sue you of course, but they generally can't demand
| compliance with takedowns in this case without first going
| to a judge and requesting a court order.
|
| There is no "commercial law" unless you mean UCC.. which
| doesn't apply here.
| spzb wrote:
| I'm not a lawyer or even an American but that certainly
| isn't how the DMCA works. The takedown is issued against
| the hosting company and, if they comply, they have no
| further liability. If they don't comply, they are liable
| in court so, of course, they all comply.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| What does DMCA stand for?
|
| Hint, that C letter is important!
| spzb wrote:
| In your mind, maybe. In the real world, the actual words
| of the statute are important.
| wtallis wrote:
| There's a difference between being compelled by a court
| order to take down a repo and choosing to comply with a
| DMCA takedown notice of dubious validity because you
| don't want to waste any more time on the issue and are
| happy to screw your users.
| spzb wrote:
| There's also a difference between how you'd like the
| world to be and the way the world actually is.
| sn_master wrote:
| Still, there's nothing illegal about GitHub deleting your
| repo for any reason they choose as long as they're a
| private entity not owned by the government.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Any law is ultimately enforced by the government. There
| isn't a different type of law to which the constitution
| doesn't apply (I mean it doesn't say a ton about limiting
| various types of laws--laws around contracts, state law,
| etc etc--but it still applies, it just doesn't say much).
|
| However, this seems more like an issue of corporate policy
| than law.
|
| Github needs to have some policy that ends up with them
| taking down repos that actually host illegal content, they
| don't have any legal obligation to host files, so they can
| respond to takedown notices by just taking down the files.
| This wouldn't be the government forcing them to take down
| files, it would be them deciding not to try and parse the
| law very closely. But this is different from having an area
| of law where the constitution doesn't apply, and it bears
| repeating, because the constitution is really important and
| the idea that there should be some sort of cutout where it
| doesn't apply is bad for society.
|
| Something we should grapple with as a society is whether
| poorly written, ambiguous laws should be interpreted as the
| government taking action by essentially forcing companies
| into be over zealous in their corporate policy.
| j-krieger wrote:
| > Any law is ultimately enforced by the government
|
| So? That's not what the first amendment applies to. You
| do not have first amendment rights in civil cases. This
| is not "an idea". It's just how it is. See libel.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > > Any law is ultimately enforced by the government
|
| > So? That's not what the first amendment applies to.
|
| Yes it is.
|
| > You do not have first amendment rights in civil cases.
|
| Yes, you do; that's why US defamation law is more limited
| than the common law it derives from, and where Fair Use
| as a judicial application of the First Amendment came
| from before it was codified in statute.
|
| > See libel.
|
| Libel is a perfect example of how you _do_ have First
| Amendment rights in civil cases. Here 's a long list of
| cases applying the First Amendment in the
| libel/defamation context:
|
| https://www.mtsu.edu/first-
| amendment/encyclopedia/case/63/li...
| llamataboot wrote:
| I think an interesting legal case could be made about
| publishing the code as a web page somewhere that could play
| around with the speech/action distinction - but I certainly
| don't think Microsoft is going to host ways for people to
| backdoor OpenAI under any circumstances - honestly I'm
| surprised it took an actual DMCA notice
| seattle_spring wrote:
| First amendment! Censorship! 2nd amendment for some reason!
|
| Yeah in all seriousness people trot out perceived
| constitutional infringements about 500x times more than it
| actually happens.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| Your rights are your rights, don't give them up.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Totally. It's just that not every restriction in the
| world is an infringement on your rights.
| smcleod wrote:
| Also they assume the entire world lives in America.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| In this case both OpenAI and Microsoft are US companies,
| so US law applies.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > You are protected in your speech from the government
|
| In theory. In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new
| rule is that government agencies are free to send takedown
| requests to social media platforms for speech that
| disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy.
| krapp wrote:
| >In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is
| that government agencies are free to send takedown
| requests to social media platforms for speech that
| disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy.
|
| Where in the Twitter files did it show that social media
| platforms would be punished with jail time or violence or
| anything if they refused to obey the government's orders?
|
| Because unless you can demonstrate the government was
| putting a gun to Twitter's head and would not take no for
| an answer, that isn't a "new rule" it's literally just
| the government making a request. Which they and anyone
| else is and has always been allowed to do. And which
| social media platforms _have sometimes refused without
| reprisal._ I mean, I see speech that disagrees with
| American foreign policy all the time on social media. No
| one 's being sent to the camps for it. It doesn't even
| get censored.
| px43 wrote:
| This is why Microsoft's takeover of Github (and OpenAI for
| that matter) is so tragic. They weren't required to take this
| down. It got taken down because Microsoft didn't like it.
| Microsoft now has their hooks in the open source community
| and can crush any project who does something they don't like.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Yup this is just code, the people running the code might be
| at fault but the code is an example.
| nbardy wrote:
| Touche, that poem is a show stopper
| TheObviousOne wrote:
| Let's arrange a donation for the creator of this Repo.
|
| This is gold and crucial for democratization of AI tools.
| dcow wrote:
| No it abuses security vulnerabilities in 3rd party businesses
| who are using OpenAI. It doesn't get you access to OpenAI's api
| at _OpenAI 's_ expense. It gets you access at [vulnerable 3rd
| party]'s expense. Bankrupting someone using OpenAI doesn't seem
| to achieve much in the way of democratization of AI tools,
| sorry.
| TheObviousOne wrote:
| it's not bankrupting them, as the author is highly ethic (by
| using only "Big companies" open apis and remove the small one
| and the ones that ask from him to be removed).
|
| But as for your comment, i see it rather as opportunity to
| make it only with Opt-in by the companies themselves. That
| way it will actually make it even win-win situation for them
| for Marketing and Ads (with lower price).
| chrsjxn wrote:
| Only stealing from people who haven't asked you nicely to
| stop doesn't scream "highly ethical" to me
|
| Security researchers put a lot of emphasis on responsibly
| disclosing vulnerabilities. The maintainers of this project
| could have easily done the same, but they didn't
| dcow wrote:
| Of course! If this was opt-in then the only problem would
| be between OpenAI and the service providers to decide
| whether that's an allowable user of OpenAI's apis based on
| the terms of service and whatnot.
| heres_a_bundle wrote:
| Here's a mirror in case it gets taken down:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230428163410/https://litter.ca...
|
| To clone from this: wget https://web.archive.or
| g/web/20230428163410embed_/https://litter.catbox.moe/gc4o73.bundl
| e git clone gc4o73.bundle gpt4free
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-28 23:02 UTC)