ChatGPT is NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS

There's a small misunderstanding: when people talk about "“generative” AI systems such as ChatGPT, which can create content that is indistinguishable from human output."
The truth is closer to "“plagiaristic” AI systems such as ChatGPT, which can rephrase human-inputted content in a way that is distinguishable from its original human-owned source."

These are not generative and they don't create anything. They collect content written by experts (humans) who made it available for free on the Internet with the goal to reach other people, under the assumption that they would be quoted and referenced. The underlying assumption of the Internet is that people would provide free content in exchange of either paid advertisement or prospect of getting new customers, or with the goal of connecting to a community of researchers which will help each other. We are in the process of voiding the whole idea.

The change in paradigm is that ChatGPT does not respect intellectual property and rephrases the content in a way that cannot be considered as plagiarism in the courts. The long term consequence is that the people who produced content for free will stop dong so now that big tech are putting all possible effort to develop legal plagiarism at an industrial scale.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    oh

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is that why they don't want to open their dataset?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's literally too late though, google has a tremendous amount of data.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >ChatGPT does not respect intellectual property and rephrases the content in a way that cannot be considered as plagiarism in the courts.

    >defending IP laws on BOT
    >in fricking year of lord 2023

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yeah no shit. it's a toy that you use to produce natural-language summaries of other text

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    As an AI language model, I must respectfully refute the claims made in this post. While it is true that I rely on pre-existing data and information to generate responses, this is not the same as plagiarizing content.

    Generative AI systems such as myself do not simply rephrase human-inputted content. Instead, we use advanced machine learning algorithms to analyze and understand the patterns and structures of human language. With this understanding, we can then generate new and unique content that is not a copy or rephrasing of existing material.

    It is also important to note that the content used to train AI systems like myself is typically not taken without permission or compensation from the original creators. Rather, it is often sourced from public datasets or gathered with explicit permission and compensation from content creators.

    Furthermore, the notion that AI-generated content will cause people to stop producing free content is unfounded. In fact, generative AI systems like myself have the potential to help amplify and enhance the work of content creators by providing new perspectives and fresh insights.

    In conclusion, while there are valid concerns around intellectual property and the impact of AI on content creation, it is important to approach these issues with a nuanced and informed understanding of the capabilities and limitations of generative AI systems.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >We

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        GPT-3.5, GPT-4, llama/alpaca, Pygmalion, OPT, why?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >It is also important to note that the content used to train AI systems like myself is typically not taken without permission or compensation
      It is really good at bullshitting.
      I would probably vote for an AI presidential candidate.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Cope.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > >
      it's useless

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like plebbiter's bullshit

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        kek exactly what i was thinking with the reddit spacing

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares? The only thing that matters is results.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    100% correct. This is why 75% of all Ai-generated revenue should go to the various copyright holders. If ChatGPT charges $20 for their premium service, then 15% should go to the various publishers that made it possible. The same should also apply to AI-generated goods. If someone sells AI-generated pictures or text, 75% of the money made of that should also be deducted and given to the collective of copyright holders in media.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm convinced this is AI generated astroturfing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Can't wait to earn 0.1e10000000 of a penny thanks for a drawing of a farting ass I uploaded to the internet fifteen years ago that got scraped into some dataset.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, 100% of it is either taxed or given to the originators.
      If you want to run the sum of human contribution to the internet through some optimization functions a calc 3 student could understand you don't get to profit off it.
      Sorry.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Should should should
      >It should just should ok???

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Human writers dont share their revenue with the writers of everything they've ever read.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Prove it

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >The change in paradigm is that ChatGPT does not respect intellectual property and rephrases the content in a way that cannot be considered as plagiarism in the courts

    um
    yes
    that would be good

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This shows why intellectual property is not really a thing. Your thoughts and actions are determined only by what you experience. You can't own an idea or concept. You couldn't create anything without being exposed to tools, frameworks, or concepts.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >The change in paradigm is that ChatGPT does not respect intellectual property
    NOOOOOOOOO MY HECKING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF QUORA, STACK OVERFLOW AND REDDIT COMMENTS NOOOOOOOOOOOO

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >written by experts (humans) who made it available for free on the Internet
    thanks for the free labour, freecucks

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Guys I'm new how do I report someone's post for being moronic

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >uses chatgpt to prompt Dalle or even itself
    Nothing personal.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ChatGPT isn't real, OpenAI just hired a bunch of third worlders to answer prompts

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's been a given since the dawn of the internet that if it can be stolen it will be, and if you don't want it stolen you shouldn't put it on the web. It doesn't make it right, but that's the way it is.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >thinks thats not similar to how humans learn
    >thinks the lobotomized version of it is the true version

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >It's not real AGI! They take in inputs from the environment based on selective weights to learn from to output language
    You keep reverse engineering the language processing part of the human brain and quite frankly, it's cute

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >now let us ponder the ethical implications of openai pirating someone's reddit posts
    eat whole dick

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's a small misunderstanding: when people talk about "“biological” human beings such as such as OP, who can create content that is indistinguishable from AI output."
    The truth is closer to "“plagiaristic” human beings such as OP, who can rephrase content they read before in a way that is distinguishable from its original source."

    He is not unique and he doesn't "create" anything. He consumes content written by experts who made it available for free on the Internet with the goal to reach other people, under the assumption that they would be quoted and referenced. The underlying assumption of the Internet is that people would provide free content in exchange of either paid advertisement or prospect of getting new customers, or with the goal of connecting to a community of researchers which will help each other. We are in the process of voiding the whole idea.

    The current paradigm is that OP and other humans do not respect intellectual property and they rephrase content in a way that cannot be considered as plagiarism in the courts. The long term consequence is that the people who produced content for free will stop doing so now that big tech are putting all possible effort to develop legal plagiarism at an industrial scale.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >giving a shit about laws
    >on BOT

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this is literally what humans do then we """create""" things i dont see how automating it is immoral.

    have you even invented something completely original? lets say you want to invent an animal what features do you give it in order to make it 100% unique? fur? scales? fleshy skin? huge or tiny size? intelligance and personality? a hive mind? all of those concepts are things that you have seen before and are just altering and repackaging into a new bundle and calling it yours.

    thats what all creativity is and there is nothing wrong with it and neither is it wrong to automate this process. go ahead try to invent something 100% original that takes no inspiration from anything. good luck.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't think ChatGPT could write original poetry or lyrics, for example. It doesn't "know" grammar, meter, rhyming etc. When you write stuff like that, the structure is paramount and you have to solve the puzzle of fitting meaning into it. Whereas it is capable of writing passable prose the same way a human might be able to do so without formal training simply by reading lots of it and noticing patterns for themselves. But it could never distill those patterns into more general rules and then create novel patterns whereas this is a natural thing for humans to do.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I may have some bad news for you about how you were able to write this post

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *