[eli]

Seems only fair that if LLMs can use copyrighted data for training then they should be able to use cannot-be-copyrighted output of other LLMs.

But barring the terms of service from forbidding distillation seems like a tough sell. OpenAI shouldn't be allowed to decide what types of customers it wants and doesn't want?

[mediaman]

This happens all the time. The government can decide legislatively that certain commercial terms are simply unenforceable. Making distillation clauses unenforceable in tort law would be straightforward. They can decide what customers they want to have, but they do not have unfettered rights as to the enforceability of terms governing the relationships between the parties.

[eli]

I'm not doubting it's possible to pass such a law, I'm doubting that's it's a practical or worthwhile goal.

The terms of service don't even necessarily matter here. OpenAI could cancel your account for almost any reason, or for no reason at all. They don't particularly need to cite a ToS violation just as a store owner doesn't need to point to a written policy to kick you out of their store.

If the underlying issue is that LLMs should be regulated as a public good, then lets have that discussion. If it's that the major AI companies are becoming too powerful and anti-competitive, let's talk serious anti-trust enforcement. Micro-managing business policies isn't going to work very well.

[hnfong]

You two are talking about different things.

You are pointing out that OpenAI can cancel user's accounts for almost any reason, and nobody can really force them to serve customers that they suspect are distilling their models.

That's one thing.

The GP is saying the government can make laws to make terms against distillation unenforceable. Without such laws, if you signed an agreement with OpenAI pinky swearing you won't distill, but turns out you did, you are liable in tort and OpenAI can sue you. (It seems nobody really cares about contract and agreements any more, but still...)

This is the other thing.

And I think you are both right.

[eli]

What do you suppose the damages would be for a ToS violation? The difference between subscription rates and API rates?

OpenAI accused Deepseek of misappropriating trade secrets which could have serious penalties but seems like an awfully hard case to make.

Seems like we’d all be better off with a law that governs data sharing among AI companies, if that’s the policy goal.

[_aavaa_]

> The difference between subscription rates and API rates?

Infinite $ since you’re trying to steal their proprietary information, in their view.

Also API usage also has ToS.

[eli]

Right so that's a trade secrets argument. I agree that's probably their best current legal avenue. It isn't related to ToS though.

[Terr_]

> Seems only fair

"You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen!" -- Vizzini

[paxys]

It's pretty common to have such laws. OpenAI can put whatever they want in their ToS, but they cannot go back and sue someone for violating those terms if the government has ruled that clause to be unenforceable.

[matheusmoreira]

> OpenAI shouldn't be allowed to decide what types of customers it wants and doesn't want?

Correct. It shouldn't be allowed to do that.

[jay_kyburz]

Err.. I would like preserve my own right to decide who I'll do business with.

[SomeHacker44]

You already do not have that unfettered right in the USA.

[jay_kyburz]

Yes, sorry I didn't mean to imply that I didn't want to do business with minorities or protected classes.

[inigyou]

Sam and Dario keep saying intelligence will be like water or electricity. If that's the case then it should be illegal to deny to anyone. In most parts of the world the power company can't shut off your power for an unpaid bill - they have to get a court order to allow it, which gives you a chance to defend yourself or make a payment plan.

[CamperBob2]

Then write your own training corpus.

[Der_Einzige]

Unironically would love to kill that right. Unironically that stupid cake maker in Colorado should have just made the damn cake.

Wage spiritual warfare against the petit-bourgeoise. They all deserve it anyway, as they are the traditional harbringers of actual fascism.

[eli]

The law was probably fine - that case was just wrongly decided based on the outcome the majority of justices wanted.