[sli]

This is just copyright infringement reworded to pretend it's not. I own the things I write, and publishing it on the internet doesn't negate that. OpenAI doesn't have the right to claim it, no matter what they think, and neither does anyone else.

[bruce511]

Firstly publishing something on Facebook explicitly gives them the right to "copy" it. It certainly gives them the right to exploit it (it's literally their business model.)

Secondly, Facebook is behind a login, so it's not "public" in the way HN comments are public. You'd have gained more kudos had you argued that point.

Thirdly this article I about MetaAI not OpenAI. So, no, OpenAI isn't claiming anything about your Facebook post.

I'll assume however that you digressed from the main topic, and were complaining about OpenAI scraping the web.

Here's the thing. When you publish something publically (on the internet or on paper) you can't control who reads it. You can't control what they learn from it, or how they'll use that knowledge in their own life or work.

You can of course control republishing of the original work, but that's a very narrow use case.

In school we read setwork books. We wrote essays, summaries, objections, theme analysis and so on. Some of my class went on to be writers, influenced by those works and that study.

In the same way OpenAI is reading voraciously. It is using that to assign mathematical probabilities to certain word pairings. It is studying published material in the same way I did at school, albeit with more enthusiasm, diligence and success.

In truth you don't "own the things you write" not in the conceptual sense. You cannot own a concept, argument or position. Ultimately there is nothing new under the sun (see what I did there?) and your blog post is already a rehash of that which came before.

Yes, you "own" the text, to the degree to each any text can be "owned" (which is not much.)

[vharuck]

>Firstly publishing something on Facebook explicitly gives them the right to "copy" it. It certainly gives them the right to exploit it (it's literally their business model.)

This isn't necessarily true for a user content host. I haven't read Facebook's TOS, but some agreements restrict what the host can do with the users' content. Usually things like save content on servers, distribute it over the web in HTML pages to other users, and make copies for backups. This might encourage users to post poetry, comics, or stories without worrying about Facebook or Twitter selling their work in anthologies and keeping all the money.

>In school we read setwork books. We wrote essays, summaries, objections, theme analysis and so on. Some of my class went on to be writers, influenced by those works and that study.

Scholarly reports are explicitly covered under a Fair Use exception.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

But also be careful not to anthropomorphize LLMs. Just because something produces content similar to what a human would make doesn't mean it should be treated as human in the law. Or any other way.

[jprete]

OpenAI is not reading voraciously, it is not a human being. It makes copies of the data for training.

If there were an actual AI system which was trained by continuously processing direct fetches from the Web, without storing them but directly using it when for internal state transitions, then that might make the reading analogy work. But then AI engineers couldn't do all the analysis and annotation steps that are vital to the training process.

[alok-g]

Beautifully written. Thanks.

[mr_toad]

> publishing it on the internet doesn't negate that

The terms of use of most sites (including this one) include giving the site owners a license to use what you post, often in any way they see fit.