How do you square this with OpenAI's assertion that they never use data from enterprise customers for their own training? Are you suggesting they're lying?
OpenAI just slurped the entire internet to train their main model, and the world just looks on as they directly compete with and disrupt authors the globe over.
Whoever thinks they are not interested in your data and won't use any trick to get it, then double down on their classic "but your honor, it's not copyright theft, the algorithm learns just like an employee exposed to the data would", isn't paying attention.
This is exactly why I am personally intensely opposed to treating ML training as fair use. Practically speaking the argument justifies ignoring anyone or any group’s preference not to contribute to ML training, so it’s a massive loss of freedom to everyone else.
I agree with you. What come to my mind, is that GPT using private data to learn, if given back to (any) customer, you would have an indirect "open source everything".
No-one seems to have sued Unity over an even more egregious set of EULA changes - claiming that users retroactively owed money on games developed and published under totally different terms.
Afaik, they rolled the retroactive fee back, right?
And technically, that was a modification of the future EULA.
If you wanted to continue to use Unity, here was the pricing structure, which includes payments for previous installs.
You were welcome to walk away and refuse the new EULA.
Which is a big difference with historically collecting data, in violation of the then-EULA, and attempting to retroactively bless it via future EULA change.
Whoever thinks they are not interested in your data and won't use any trick to get it, then double down on their classic "but your honor, it's not copyright theft, the algorithm learns just like an employee exposed to the data would", isn't paying attention.