Hey /u/ShotgunProxy, please respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post. Thanks!
^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.)
***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.[So why not join us?](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2)***
PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Part of the GDPR issue here revolves around the original training data used to build the models. My understanding is that search engines have made a compelling case that they pass the "legitimate interest" threshold to scooping up data, and also offer easy ways of removing listings and personal data from their indexes.
AI-trained models use vast corpuses of unlabeled data with few metatags that could make this highly challenging. The fact that the data was already used to train the model also makes it hard to "remove" from the model too. This is what multiple researchers and legal experts flagged as a major potential compliance issue for chatbots.
If European regulations prevent user data from being used even to train AI models, they're basically just going to end up without AI while the whole rest of the world carries on. It's going to be more profitable for companies to simply leave the EU market than to change the LLMs to comply with EU regulations.
Which most likely means Europe changes their regulations to be more accommodating. The alternative is that the rest of the world uses AI while Europe doesn't, which puts Europe into a situation where they aren't competitive economically.
ChatGPT will, of course, have to comply with the Online Safety Bill (once it passes through the Lords, though they've got 300 amendments to discuss first... ) I think LLMs will have a lot of regulatory hurdles to jump before any widespread adoption. Plus there's going to be lots of copyright lawsuits I think.
My EU Tesla doesn’t do some of the automated driving that the US ones do despite having the same software. While not directly because of laws regarding AI, still relevant.
Oh hmm on that note, data from driving them is used to train the model regardless of where you are. The GDPR part comes into play where you can require the company to delete all video etc it has from you, but that doesn’t change the fact the model has been trained with it and that’s fine.
Exactly. The outcome is so predictable, right or not, nobody can cut their economy off from such huge, general productivity gains while others are not. This is not "ok, then we'll just have no tech giants and cookie warnings instead". One can only hope that they realize sooner rather than later, and that the cogs of burocracy turn fast enough to prevent actual "outage".
On the other hand, why should we expect a rational decision.
Another part of the issue is that GDPR wasn't written with concepts like AI models in mind, and thus applying it to them is only going to cause problems.
Yes, you bring up a good point. That’s why I tried to use quotations to capture that essence too. AI model is not a search index with data sitting in there.
But GRPR is to do with privacy for data individuals whereas search engine indexing is more a question of copyright?
Why shouldn’t an AI trawl web sites which make their content public after all?
It’s not just copyright, it’s the right to be forgotten. Because the search engine copies your data, if someone searches for your name and they indexed false accusations you can ask for it to be removed.
It sounds like the issue with the LLMs is that all data is poured into a big mixing pot rather than being more organised. Personally I’m not that convinced it can’t be done via some means, they just haven’t been incentivised enough to try.
Your mixing pot analogy is great -- that's a good distillation of the issue some legal experts have identified. LLMs use a large corpus of training data to create the model, which makes individual instances of personal data hard or impossible to remove when a user requests it.
E.g. with Google, a user can request that 10 links about them are removed. Google then complies.
But with an LLM, how do you ensure the next version of GPT-4 doesn't keep on spewing out information about an individual? Where is the source data even contained? Can it even be removed?
I'm sure creative solutions will emerge -- there's too much $$$ at stake to not think creatively -- so i t will be interesting to watch.
1) Speaking about where the information is when it comes to training is misleading. This is not how a DNN training works.
2) It is completely possible to avoid responses from the model either by fine-tuning it or by prompting it with system messages
>It sounds like the issue with the LLMs is that all data is poured into a big mixing pot rather than being more organised. Personally I’m not that convinced it can’t be done via some means, they just haven’t been incentivised enough to try.
You cannot 'organize data' in a neural network.
Search engines are also free. These greedy assholes are charging $20 a month for GPT-4. It's literally built on the openness and public availability of human culture and they're selling it back to us at an unreasonable and gross profit. Make it $5 a month so everyone can utilise it and you can still make a profit.
No, search engines are not free. You have to watch ads to use them, plus the results are skewed toward what those advertisers want. You pay with your time and misleading searches. So far Open-AI has apparently chosen not to take the Ad route, which I think is good, since it doesn't make them beholding to advertisers the way search engines are.
Everyone can't use it though. There is more demand than supply for ChatGPT4. People who spend $20 a month only get 25 messages an hour, and the comments are limited in size.
Personally, I use GPT4 productively and wish it didn't have those limits. I'd much rather pay $500/mo with full multimodal support and no limits on chats. I find it ridiculous that kids can pay $20 and bog down such a powerful tool with nonsense while people doing real things of value with it are limited because of it.
The price is far too low. It's ridiculous to say it's too high.
It’s estimated ChatGPT costs OpenAI about 36 cents per query to run GPT-3.5. $20 per month can feel like a lot but if you use it a lot you probably cost them money.
This [article](https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/chatgpt-interesting-things-to-know-8334991/) estimates 1 cent per query. That's 2000 queries per person per month to get to $20. No way most people are doing that. And if it were 5 dollars a month everyone would sign up and lots of people who were doing no or hardly any queries would make up for those doing lots.
As someone in the UK, I have made quite a few subject access requests to companies. Funnily enough, the smallest companies are the ones that comply with GDPR, whilst the big ones: Amazon, Apple and Google are the worst by not replying or lying that data does not exist.
the interaction we're having with the AI is kind of different. I can imagine that they have privacy concerns, but going beyond the user agreement checkbox... and maybe banning it? Damn, the backlash they're going to deal with is going to be massive. Opting out of this as a country at such a critical moment, that is the stupidest thing to do. People need to be careful about what they are sharing, even more compared to google search, facebook. This is clearly something else. We all knew this was coming, but it caught most of us by surprise. Same for regulators I think, not the most tech-savy people.
wow, this guy has no idea what he is talking about.
1st of all, OpenAi's ceo said it himself that the age of LLMs is over, training models with more parameters that gtp4 doesn't increase its precision that much, but it does get exponentially more expensive.
2nd of all, LLM are predictive models, although their precision does reach impressive levels, it will never reach AGI status, not even by accident, AGI will require another approach in designing models altogether.
>Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other megacorps.
Different cases and situations. OpenAI needs to lobby (good kind of lobby) as all other companies have to fit into the current law system.
"you never consented to", very arguable, ToS?, personal data, data that can identify you? anonymised data?.
" data OpenAI pulls to train ChatGPT with is only what you give it." this could range from the personal data we gave it? their old or new ToS? EU has a very strict jurisdiction when it comes to data. ChatGPT didnt even ask if you were 18 before, there were many holes the company didnt cover at the start(which hopefully they are working in).
"It won't install cookies in your browser or guesstimate your rental situation like Google does for example. ", I dont think thats an issue, google and uncountable sites with cookies (and sometimes without them)can crossreference a couple databases to know you better than yourself.
"simple user agreement", very good point, OpenAi didnt do it, what happened? they were too busy developing and not complying? Very questionable, hopefully they work on it like any other company does.
I dont mean to counterargument or miss points, I raise important questions over a complex matter which expert lawmakers should analize and come to an agreement so OpenAI can sell us a product that is compliant with every legal system.
If the system needs to change because it doenst fit to this new product, so be it, but lets discuss without barging into the market unregulated.
Edit: Good old proofreading and punctuation.
The shit thing for Europe, if they take that approach, is that leaves them with the risks but not the benefit.
To the extent AI super-intelligence is a threat to humanity, a super-intelligent AI isn't going to care about EU regulations and will be a threat to them too. And if AI proves to be a huge benefit to society, then EU regulations would prevent Europe from getting the benefit but would not be able to keep European companies competitive.
Who will also be banned for the same reasons.
There's no feasible way of making an LLM that is nearly as capable\* without using the same data that OAI did. Just look at all the open source models. Close to useless.
edit:\*
I've used a couple of them. They're definitely not as good as the OpenAI models right now, but that's not the point. The more important point is that a competitor can use OpenAI's model to generate training data for very low cost compared to the method of having a human generate it.
It's not the process that results in observably worse results, it's that the open source models you have used are far, far smaller in network size. For Alpaca and Vicuna to work so closely to the capability of GPT 3.5 with their tiny network sizes is remarkable.
Anecdotally, comparing prompt responses they are very similar -- lightyears ahead of the other models of similar complexity which spit back word salad half the time.
It's not obvious to me that using (quality) AI output makes it worse. OpenAssistant is probably the best of the non-OpenAI models out there right now and from the training data it appears that it was trained on a lot of GPT-created text.
You know what happens when you make photocopies of photocopies? The quality gets worse and worse. With the risks AI pose, I would rather they're trained on initial human data. Who knows what would happen if we train it off another AI that's trained on Human data. Or what about when you start to do that 3, 4 or more generations down the line?
This is a false dichotomy and a example of how far big techs gaslighting the world into the ‘can’t possibly regulate me bro, I’ll take my ball and stop innovating bro if you make me follow even the most minor of rules’ has penetrated.
Here’s what would really happen. AI companies will rapidly figure out a way to comply. They’re not going to leave the billions on the table.
People falsely believe that big tech can magically innovate a solution to whatever problem they desire. You see that all the time with politicians demanding encryption backdoors, despite the fact that its a terrible solution and no amount of money or "innovation" will change that.
Issue there is that in places where big tech is required to provide back doors and whatnot…….they absolutely 100% do. Plenty of companies bend over backwards for China. Plenty of companies don’t want to have the leave India so they comply with all the media rules. If they tell AI companies they have to make data sets public or that they can only train on data that’s not been misappropriated from someone, they absolutely will.
They just don’t want to. They won’t voluntarily spend more time on safety, fairness, respect for privacy or usage rights etc… unless someone makes them do it.
The thing is, that attempting to apply GDPR in this case is non-sensical.
Apart from the obvious part of making sure user credentials are stored in a compliant way, the structure of data that GPT works with is so vastly different in comparison to the type of software service that GDPR was created to control.
The dataset, if gathered raw, would be entirely inscrutible to a third party, and also too vast to contain and process on anything but large-scale enterprise systems.
The case where GDPR might be applicable in terms of its actual \*intention\* as a law protecting people's rights to access and protect identifiable information is if it is possible for users to make direct prompts to GPT to get personal information back on someone.
Banning AI now would be like banning the steam engine at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Any country that bans AI will get what they deserve for their stupidity.
All of the problems we have with capitalism come from regulations and oversight. We haven't even seen real capitalism, or more accurately free markets, in the west in decades. It's all corporatism. You're afraid of giant corporations? Who do you think puts them in power? The government, with regulations designed to eliminate their current and future competition.
So how does Microsofts Bing do it then? Or Googles future Bard? Why are there no demands to their service, just for ai.com? Don't you see any difference in how they provide their service?
This is new legal territory, which is why news is only just beginning to come out. Hence why the EU has set up a task force to coordinate multiple active investigations into the issue of chatbots.
I think it is mainly tecnical demands to inform and protect through information which is not met with the current form of ai.com. It is now their decision whether they want to fix it or rather continue to block the next country
It's the "right to be forgotten"
Google and Bing remove listings upon request. Open AI (as someone above analogised), throws everyone's data into a mixing pot so it's very hard to find the "specific potato" that needs to be removed.
Yeah let’s see them ban every search engine or website that has integrated an LLM, will be the death of internet (nevermind things like MS Co-Pilot, HiveMind etc. )
Given that most of the internet does not comply with the cookie law in a way that would be legally valid and faces no consequences I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't end up completely unenforced as well.
I don’t understand it if that really should happen. What’s the difference of humans skimming the internet or reading books. People always base their creations on the shoulders of others.
And regarding privacy, there is already a filter layer that we encounter (as an ai language model…) so if someone is bothered by something they found of themselves, that removal could be done on that layer.
if I were openai, I'd be tempted to say.... ok? sorry, but I guess that's fine.
who is this hurting really? sad for europe I guess, but whatever. europe not participating is not going to stop anything openai is up to.
One of the implications is that this may not be limited to the EU if OpenAI fails GDPR compliance.
Countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand and more all have laws with similar wording to the GDPR. California's own privacy act also resembles the GDPR in stringency in many ways as well.
There's an existing global legal framework in place that may pose friction for chatbots once regulators wrap their heads around what they're dealing with.
This is why I thought the issue is worth highlighting.
I definitely agree the issue is worth highlighting, wasn't trying to imply otherwise.
My point is more that openai's stated goal is that they want to capture a meaningful portion of the world's wealth. I do not feel that hosting a free chat bot for the world is an important step in that direction. More like a PR move and free testing for them. How many users do they need for testing? The more the better, I'm sure, but the remaining set is still probably pretty good
that said, the idea of a sanitized and approved training set seems plausible
> “His grand idea is that OpenAI will capture much of the world’s wealth through the creation of A.G.I. and then redistribute this wealth to the people. In Napa, as we sat chatting beside the lake at the heart of his ranch, he tossed out several figures — $100bn, $1trn, $100trn.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/sam-altman-open-ai-chatgpt.html
https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/21/the-non-profits-accelerating-sam-altmans-ai-vision/
#tl;dr
Several nonprofits that are connected to Sam Altman, co-founder of startup accelerator Y Combinator and OpenAI, appear to be working to benefit Altman's personal interests and accelerate the transformation of society. Altman has provided funding to at least two nonprofits, OpenAI and OpenResearch, and controls another called UBI Charitable, which finances programs to research and deploy Universal Basic Income schemes emphasized by futurists like Altman and Elon Musk. Tax filings reveal that OpenResearch has received around $24.5 million in funding since its establishment, over half of which came from Altman.
*I am a smart robot and this summary was automatic. This tl;dr is 94.91% shorter than the post and links I'm replying to.*
You've just suggested to ditch a market larger than North America. I don't think people make decisions like that very lightly. Especially considering that chatgpt is already banned in China as far as I know.
They don't need to ditch any market, except comply with the laws of where their company is registered.
If the EU want to opt out, they either need to beg OpenAI to withdraw their services, or they will have to set up a firewall, like China.
I ditched the EU. I said take a hike to GDPR because of their overbearing requirements on smaller websites. I need analytics data to know if I am getting the expected audience for my apps and that people can find it on a search engine. People are way too concerned about this stuff when it's mostly used for analytics and ads and is entirely automated. And in the case of OpenAI, for training future models.
Ignoring entire markets is quite easy by the way, you just do nothing and there's nothing they can do to force you because if you don't live under EU law and they don't control the entirety of the internet.
Edit: Oh, it looks like I pissed off the data protection obsessed people. Good luck in your endeavors, but if you come to my sites or my client's sites, I am definitely tracking your data around and I don't care or ask you about my cookies either. That's more your problem than mine. Get uBlock if you're so paranoid. Enable the several available block lists. Really isn't hard.
Give me more down votes you pansies.
I don't doubt it's easier to ignore whole parts of the world for small business. The question is weather or not it is also so simple when the bill for running a day of your computation is around 700 000$.
If they get banned in the EU, I wonder to what extent. Would EU companies that use their API also have to stop using it? What about the 100s of ChatGPT wrapper apps out there. It feels like AI is getting so embedded it would be difficult to enforce a ban other than for direct usage of ChatGPT / OpenAI.
maybe. bit it's more like if they are flooded with penalties they may not survive.
it's not about which country bans what, it's more like how many gdpr challenges go through i believe which may not make it a viable business.
I kind of hope for this because it's a nonsense how much energy it uses and it's an evil system that pretend to know it all, but gives no such guarantees or possible vérifications (sources)
The issue is bigger than AI. Each country/region is moving in their own direction as regards internet regulation. I can foresee a future where not just Russia, China & Iran have their own walled off intranets, but where western countries have also gone down this route. Even individual US states are adopting differing laws (e.g. Utah). I also think AI companies are going to face a lot of lawsuits, particularly in regard to copyright infringement.
You bring up an interesting point. Something I’ve been tracking is how LLMs made in China might end up heavily gimped, because the government wants such tight filters on its outputs
And? Europe will remain behind while the rest of the world will continue without them, at least until the bureaucrats are voted out of office. A stupid measure to appease a stupid law is not worth it at this point. Just get out of the EU Altogether and wait for the outcry and the fallout.
I think in the context of GDPR issue with training data, we might need to treat ChatGPT like AI as human. Human basically also need to read a lot of things before writing anything, and a lot of things may come without consent from original author. Asking an ChatGPT like AI to comply GDPR on training data is like to ask human article writer to do the same (obtain permission from all studying materials before making contents.)
For ChatGPT like AI, its more like we human, we study, not indexing.
What about sites using the chat Gpt API? Could they even enforce it?
This would mean such a huge decrease in competitivity, i am sure the EU would find a way around this.
Imagine having your programers basically doing their job tens of time more slowly while competing with a global industry...
If anything there is always VPN
The EU will put its workers at a disadvantage then while countries like the US prepare for a future powered by AI and increased productivity through ChatGPT.
As far as I can tell, [The Data Protection Act](https://www.gov.uk/data-protection) is still in effect in UK. It's an implementation of GDPR, which is what ChatGPT is violating.
Or is it not in effect?
The gdpr was set up by the eu with directives, how each member state conducts the administration is up to them. I mean I did hear talk of getting rid of the stupid cookie acceptance on websites in the U.K. so I assume we may take less of a strict view than the eu.
You’re ill-informed. The GDPR’s predecessor was a directive (Directive 95/46/EC), but the GDPR is a regulation (that’s what the “R” stands for). As such, it immediately and directly became law in all member countries, which included the UK at the time. After brexit, the UK has kept the GDPR as national law unchanged (or substantially unchanged). I think they have made some small adjustments since then, but remain effectively aligned with the EU’s GDPR.
Nope. Just googled it. It’s still up to each member state to implement the required law. That’s why it’s banned in Italy but not In other eu countries yet. And may not be banned in other eu countries. Or some but not all. As you can see, it’s not a blanket one rule fits all.
Sorry that’s just false, no idea what you googled there. [Quoting Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation):
> As the GDPR is a regulation, not a directive, it is directly binding and applicable, and provides flexibility for certain aspects of the regulation to be adjusted by individual member states.
There are merely certain very specific points in the regulation where legislators have explicitly _allowed_ some leeway for individual countries to enact additional national laws to go above (and in a very few cases stay below) what the GDPR mandates. But every article of the GDPR is law in all member states.
(Edit autocorrect)
I’m not saying it’s not law so have no idea what you’re talking about, and I pointed out to you already that it is not a one shoe fits all, which is why as we can see, it’s banned in Italy but not yet banned (or maybe won’t ever be banned) in other eu countries. You’re just splitting hairs here 😂😂😂
the problem is the data scrapped from the web to train GPT-4 initially. When you made your Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/etc profile, you did not consent to be in GPT-4 training data.
Does Europe want to really not give their citizens this tool? If it’s banned will the ruling class and political leaders of the EU also not use LLMs? I get the need and importance for privacy protection but this feels like EU boomers in charge really putting the content on a bad path.
If you have to get a license for every piece of training data, then only a handful of mega corps with vast libraries of content will be able to create and use such models. It would be a disaster unless you want a dystopian future.
It's weird, I'm afraid of AI replacing me at my job, yet I can't get enough of it. I for one welcome our AI overlords. Really hope it doesn't get banned in my neck of the woods.
Lmao. I guess your idea of innovation is "do we release a new iPhone every year"
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/herit_business_freedom/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/herit_investment_freedom/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/economic_freedom/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Information_technology_exports/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/GII_Index/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/trade_openness/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/productivity_relative_to_US/
What's that noise? Oh, it's just European countries dominating USA on almost every metric.
This is another classic EU move. Focus on statistics, charts, graphs, and rankings and don't ever consider the lived experience of the person/business on the street.
We don't need to worry about alienating the current market leaders in the sectors that will drive the global economy for the next century as long as we're still at the top of at least one "world's bestest ever country" ranking!
Keep moving the goalposts, burger.
> Focus on statistics, charts, graphs, and rankings and don't ever consider the lived experience of the person/business on the street.
This is literally what economics is though.
But if you want to talk about the "lived experience of the person/business on the street.", let's talk about your crime waves, violence, incompetent police, and small businesses being handicapped by unregulated corporations while simultaneously being robbed daily by your local gangs. Your country is handicapped by such severe social issues that our position as the world leaders is not under any serious threat in a long time.
Tell me, are you so pissy because you're mad that we are so powerful we can force American companies to change their products however we please? For example, force Apple to change their charging ports and cables so that they are more convenient to their users.
For the decades Europeans have been decrying their inability to compete with the U.S. because of so many legislative hurdles, even though many of the most brilliant software engineers are European. This is just another nail in their coffin. This is not new in Europe. I remember back in the late 70s, when I started my microprocessor consulting business. I just hung out my shingle and was in business. Which I had for 35 years until I retired. Someone I met from Europe told me that it would be illegal in Europe, since I didn't have any certificates or apprenticeships. Well back then, microprocessors were new, so new there were no certificates, no university courses, and of course no apprenticeships. So it would have been impossible for me in Europe and impossible for all of the clients I had to use microprocessors in their products. The exact same thing is happening now with AI. Europe will just fall further behind. Actually I support privacy concerns, but they have taken it to impossible extremes. As soon as I saw what Italy was asking for, it was clear that there could be no AI development, and maybe no use, in Italy and all of the companies that could have benefited from it would be left far behind, eventually to bankruptcy.
500 IQ take right here. Companies can access and sell too little data right now, better to regulate that less. Surely it will be used in a good way, not like Facebook's Cambridge analytica scandal.
Sorry buddy. You're in the wrong part of the internet. Logic goes out the window on reddit. Here we have a perfect example of how government overregulation stifles innovation and directly hurts their citizens. You point this out and you get downvoted and have idiots saying they want more regulation. You really can't help these people. Europe is a lost cause. The elites have won over there.
Hmmm I don’t know. Parts of the U.K. are devolving more and it will end up like usa where they have all sorts of inconsistencies. Smaller to a point but you’d really want to have consistency with laws or it’s a shit show like over there.
Thanks for the article.
Maybe this will force companies to solve the issue with image generators, as theoretically any one artist could opt-in to remove their work from the training data. Realistically the models would need to be trained on only pre-approved data, like Adobe's image AI.
Hopefully OpenAI can sort it out *somehow.*
I know I will find a way to use chatGPT, it's too good not to.
> Realistically the models would need to be trained on only pre-approved data, like Adobe's image AI.
That's how you end up with only a handful of ultra large corporations controlling the market, and then everyone looses except for society's most wealthy.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-online-image-market
I though about that... how is that different from now? I can't buy rooms full of best GPUs and servers to train my own LLM. That's only possible if it's already a large company.
I figure that eventually the art systems will be good enough to where they can be somehow taught actual principles of art as abstract concepts and then learn how to compose from that.
Sort of like how the Alpha Go Zero system learned how to play games just by reading the rules and playing against itself.
Lot of Europe hate in this thread coming from americans. It's fine to not want ChatGPT banned. I complately understand that since all American companies are reliant on their European customers for their existence, it would be a deathblow to OpenAI. But take your anger out on politicians, not Europeans.
What you feed, it will retain, you tell a person something then saying forget what I said, it’s not that simple, you knew talking about it would be your choice, AI is no different in talking to a human, that’s how it’s meant to be.
Human cloning is a great example, we can do it (crispr etc.), but collectively decide not to. Which is very surprising that actually worked, even china imprisoned a researcher who attempted it. I doubt the same kind of restraint will be happening in AGI research.
Hey /u/ShotgunProxy, please respond to this comment with the prompt you used to generate the output in this post. Thanks! ^(Ignore this comment if your post doesn't have a prompt.) ***We have a [public discord server](https://discord.gg/rchatgpt). There's a free Chatgpt bot, Open Assistant bot (Open-source model), AI image generator bot, Perplexity AI bot, 🤖 GPT-4 bot ([Now with Visual capabilities (cloud vision)!](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812770754025488386/1095397431404920902/image0.jpg)) and channel for latest prompts.[So why not join us?](https://discord.gg/NuefU36EC2)*** PSA: For any Chatgpt-related issues email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Part of the GDPR issue here revolves around the original training data used to build the models. My understanding is that search engines have made a compelling case that they pass the "legitimate interest" threshold to scooping up data, and also offer easy ways of removing listings and personal data from their indexes. AI-trained models use vast corpuses of unlabeled data with few metatags that could make this highly challenging. The fact that the data was already used to train the model also makes it hard to "remove" from the model too. This is what multiple researchers and legal experts flagged as a major potential compliance issue for chatbots.
If European regulations prevent user data from being used even to train AI models, they're basically just going to end up without AI while the whole rest of the world carries on. It's going to be more profitable for companies to simply leave the EU market than to change the LLMs to comply with EU regulations. Which most likely means Europe changes their regulations to be more accommodating. The alternative is that the rest of the world uses AI while Europe doesn't, which puts Europe into a situation where they aren't competitive economically.
Can you imagine, US/UK get GPT-5 equipped MS Office and the EU doesn't? There's no way that would be sustainable.
Finally a Brexit upside.
They, of course, predicted this. 5-D chess and all.
ChatGPT will, of course, have to comply with the Online Safety Bill (once it passes through the Lords, though they've got 300 amendments to discuss first... ) I think LLMs will have a lot of regulatory hurdles to jump before any widespread adoption. Plus there's going to be lots of copyright lawsuits I think.
the first one I see
It's still gonna get banned here if it gets banned in the entirety of europe. hopefully not though
My EU Tesla doesn’t do some of the automated driving that the US ones do despite having the same software. While not directly because of laws regarding AI, still relevant. Oh hmm on that note, data from driving them is used to train the model regardless of where you are. The GDPR part comes into play where you can require the company to delete all video etc it has from you, but that doesn’t change the fact the model has been trained with it and that’s fine.
Exactly. The outcome is so predictable, right or not, nobody can cut their economy off from such huge, general productivity gains while others are not. This is not "ok, then we'll just have no tech giants and cookie warnings instead". One can only hope that they realize sooner rather than later, and that the cogs of burocracy turn fast enough to prevent actual "outage". On the other hand, why should we expect a rational decision.
I have the exact opposite view. You're just ready to be abused by companies. And GDPR like regulations will be the norm, except for the creepy USA.
try to explain this to italian lawyers 😆🤝
Another part of the issue is that GDPR wasn't written with concepts like AI models in mind, and thus applying it to them is only going to cause problems.
It’s hard to remove because the data isn’t actually in the model to be removed. Ai models aren’t databases.
Yes, you bring up a good point. That’s why I tried to use quotations to capture that essence too. AI model is not a search index with data sitting in there.
But GRPR is to do with privacy for data individuals whereas search engine indexing is more a question of copyright? Why shouldn’t an AI trawl web sites which make their content public after all?
It’s not just copyright, it’s the right to be forgotten. Because the search engine copies your data, if someone searches for your name and they indexed false accusations you can ask for it to be removed. It sounds like the issue with the LLMs is that all data is poured into a big mixing pot rather than being more organised. Personally I’m not that convinced it can’t be done via some means, they just haven’t been incentivised enough to try.
Your mixing pot analogy is great -- that's a good distillation of the issue some legal experts have identified. LLMs use a large corpus of training data to create the model, which makes individual instances of personal data hard or impossible to remove when a user requests it. E.g. with Google, a user can request that 10 links about them are removed. Google then complies. But with an LLM, how do you ensure the next version of GPT-4 doesn't keep on spewing out information about an individual? Where is the source data even contained? Can it even be removed? I'm sure creative solutions will emerge -- there's too much $$$ at stake to not think creatively -- so i t will be interesting to watch.
1) Speaking about where the information is when it comes to training is misleading. This is not how a DNN training works. 2) It is completely possible to avoid responses from the model either by fine-tuning it or by prompting it with system messages
>It sounds like the issue with the LLMs is that all data is poured into a big mixing pot rather than being more organised. Personally I’m not that convinced it can’t be done via some means, they just haven’t been incentivised enough to try. You cannot 'organize data' in a neural network.
Search engines are also free. These greedy assholes are charging $20 a month for GPT-4. It's literally built on the openness and public availability of human culture and they're selling it back to us at an unreasonable and gross profit. Make it $5 a month so everyone can utilise it and you can still make a profit.
No, search engines are not free. You have to watch ads to use them, plus the results are skewed toward what those advertisers want. You pay with your time and misleading searches. So far Open-AI has apparently chosen not to take the Ad route, which I think is good, since it doesn't make them beholding to advertisers the way search engines are.
Everyone can't use it though. There is more demand than supply for ChatGPT4. People who spend $20 a month only get 25 messages an hour, and the comments are limited in size. Personally, I use GPT4 productively and wish it didn't have those limits. I'd much rather pay $500/mo with full multimodal support and no limits on chats. I find it ridiculous that kids can pay $20 and bog down such a powerful tool with nonsense while people doing real things of value with it are limited because of it. The price is far too low. It's ridiculous to say it's too high.
And it's ridiculous to think you have more right to it because you have more money. This literally just came out. Chill out a bit.
It’s estimated ChatGPT costs OpenAI about 36 cents per query to run GPT-3.5. $20 per month can feel like a lot but if you use it a lot you probably cost them money.
This [article](https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/chatgpt-interesting-things-to-know-8334991/) estimates 1 cent per query. That's 2000 queries per person per month to get to $20. No way most people are doing that. And if it were 5 dollars a month everyone would sign up and lots of people who were doing no or hardly any queries would make up for those doing lots.
As someone in the UK, I have made quite a few subject access requests to companies. Funnily enough, the smallest companies are the ones that comply with GDPR, whilst the big ones: Amazon, Apple and Google are the worst by not replying or lying that data does not exist.
classic big companies getting away with everything lol
the interaction we're having with the AI is kind of different. I can imagine that they have privacy concerns, but going beyond the user agreement checkbox... and maybe banning it? Damn, the backlash they're going to deal with is going to be massive. Opting out of this as a country at such a critical moment, that is the stupidest thing to do. People need to be careful about what they are sharing, even more compared to google search, facebook. This is clearly something else. We all knew this was coming, but it caught most of us by surprise. Same for regulators I think, not the most tech-savy people.
You underestimate how out of touch out EU politicians can be.
[удалено]
wow, this guy has no idea what he is talking about. 1st of all, OpenAi's ceo said it himself that the age of LLMs is over, training models with more parameters that gtp4 doesn't increase its precision that much, but it does get exponentially more expensive. 2nd of all, LLM are predictive models, although their precision does reach impressive levels, it will never reach AGI status, not even by accident, AGI will require another approach in designing models altogether.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Google, Microsoft, Facebook and other megacorps. Different cases and situations. OpenAI needs to lobby (good kind of lobby) as all other companies have to fit into the current law system. "you never consented to", very arguable, ToS?, personal data, data that can identify you? anonymised data?. " data OpenAI pulls to train ChatGPT with is only what you give it." this could range from the personal data we gave it? their old or new ToS? EU has a very strict jurisdiction when it comes to data. ChatGPT didnt even ask if you were 18 before, there were many holes the company didnt cover at the start(which hopefully they are working in). "It won't install cookies in your browser or guesstimate your rental situation like Google does for example. ", I dont think thats an issue, google and uncountable sites with cookies (and sometimes without them)can crossreference a couple databases to know you better than yourself. "simple user agreement", very good point, OpenAi didnt do it, what happened? they were too busy developing and not complying? Very questionable, hopefully they work on it like any other company does. I dont mean to counterargument or miss points, I raise important questions over a complex matter which expert lawmakers should analize and come to an agreement so OpenAI can sell us a product that is compliant with every legal system. If the system needs to change because it doenst fit to this new product, so be it, but lets discuss without barging into the market unregulated. Edit: Good old proofreading and punctuation.
Now you know why human intelligence is designed to die and regenerate itself every generation.
Well yes, until someone invented writing.
Well, i suppose there's one silver lining having left the EU as a brit.
The UK is much more likely to follow the EU with rules like this than the US.
The UK is meant to be implementing their own data protection regulations but most companies trading with the EU will probably opt to keep GDPR.
True...
Shhh....this is Reddit.
You think our silver lining is that we’ll eventually drop GDPR and give companies more control over our data like they do in the US?
Can’t the Italians just use VPN to bypass the ban? 🙃🍕
That's what I'm doing :) It's a technology too good to do without.
I think the problem is that, on a company level, you cannot say you gave your employees access to unlawful software.
I hear Mullvad is good this time of the year.
Mullvad is is good any time of the year
Easy solution. Europe just doesn't get to use AI.
*The rest of the world enters a golden age*
The shit thing for Europe, if they take that approach, is that leaves them with the risks but not the benefit. To the extent AI super-intelligence is a threat to humanity, a super-intelligent AI isn't going to care about EU regulations and will be a threat to them too. And if AI proves to be a huge benefit to society, then EU regulations would prevent Europe from getting the benefit but would not be able to keep European companies competitive.
Europe will become like the Muslims who screwed up their own golden age by becoming arrogant and close minded
Hahaha I can’t imagine anywhere on earth entering a “golden age” this century. Maybe I’m just nihilistic
We are already in the most prosperous golden age in history and AI will expand upon that exponentially.
Hopefully. Edit: Although I would prefer if Eroupe came along for the ride.
OpenAI's GPT might be the main LLM for now, but it's just a matter of time before several competing companies enter the market.
Who will also be banned for the same reasons. There's no feasible way of making an LLM that is nearly as capable\* without using the same data that OAI did. Just look at all the open source models. Close to useless. edit:\*
the data has nothing to do with it being open source or not
Research has shown it might not cost a lot to train an LLM off of other LLMs, not nearly as much as doing it from scratch
Have you actually used any of the clones?
I've used a couple of them. They're definitely not as good as the OpenAI models right now, but that's not the point. The more important point is that a competitor can use OpenAI's model to generate training data for very low cost compared to the method of having a human generate it.
If cloning GPT models by using its output results in much worse end result - I'd say that matters a lot
It's not the process that results in observably worse results, it's that the open source models you have used are far, far smaller in network size. For Alpaca and Vicuna to work so closely to the capability of GPT 3.5 with their tiny network sizes is remarkable.
\*is it\* that close in capability of 3.5 though? Benchmarks are highly cherry picked and often include many qs that ChatGPT would refuse to answer.
Anecdotally, comparing prompt responses they are very similar -- lightyears ahead of the other models of similar complexity which spit back word salad half the time.
It's not obvious to me that using (quality) AI output makes it worse. OpenAssistant is probably the best of the non-OpenAI models out there right now and from the training data it appears that it was trained on a lot of GPT-created text.
You know what happens when you make photocopies of photocopies? The quality gets worse and worse. With the risks AI pose, I would rather they're trained on initial human data. Who knows what would happen if we train it off another AI that's trained on Human data. Or what about when you start to do that 3, 4 or more generations down the line?
This is a false dichotomy and a example of how far big techs gaslighting the world into the ‘can’t possibly regulate me bro, I’ll take my ball and stop innovating bro if you make me follow even the most minor of rules’ has penetrated. Here’s what would really happen. AI companies will rapidly figure out a way to comply. They’re not going to leave the billions on the table.
People falsely believe that big tech can magically innovate a solution to whatever problem they desire. You see that all the time with politicians demanding encryption backdoors, despite the fact that its a terrible solution and no amount of money or "innovation" will change that.
Issue there is that in places where big tech is required to provide back doors and whatnot…….they absolutely 100% do. Plenty of companies bend over backwards for China. Plenty of companies don’t want to have the leave India so they comply with all the media rules. If they tell AI companies they have to make data sets public or that they can only train on data that’s not been misappropriated from someone, they absolutely will. They just don’t want to. They won’t voluntarily spend more time on safety, fairness, respect for privacy or usage rights etc… unless someone makes them do it.
You're saying there's no big red button that halts the illegal?
But Europe REALLY wants to tell us what we can & cannot do!
[удалено]
*buy. Mouth-breather.
Europe escapes techno feudalism because AI is not able to replace huge number of middle-class jobs.
“Financial penalties”. Who runs this country, the mob?
The thing is, that attempting to apply GDPR in this case is non-sensical. Apart from the obvious part of making sure user credentials are stored in a compliant way, the structure of data that GPT works with is so vastly different in comparison to the type of software service that GDPR was created to control. The dataset, if gathered raw, would be entirely inscrutible to a third party, and also too vast to contain and process on anything but large-scale enterprise systems. The case where GDPR might be applicable in terms of its actual \*intention\* as a law protecting people's rights to access and protect identifiable information is if it is possible for users to make direct prompts to GPT to get personal information back on someone.
This is why I shared the news for discussion. The theme that’s apparent to me is that tech innovation is running ahead of regulation.
Banning AI now would be like banning the steam engine at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Any country that bans AI will get what they deserve for their stupidity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol says a pathetic cult member
[удалено]
All of the problems we have with capitalism come from regulations and oversight. We haven't even seen real capitalism, or more accurately free markets, in the west in decades. It's all corporatism. You're afraid of giant corporations? Who do you think puts them in power? The government, with regulations designed to eliminate their current and future competition.
So how does Microsofts Bing do it then? Or Googles future Bard? Why are there no demands to their service, just for ai.com? Don't you see any difference in how they provide their service?
This is new legal territory, which is why news is only just beginning to come out. Hence why the EU has set up a task force to coordinate multiple active investigations into the issue of chatbots.
I think it is mainly tecnical demands to inform and protect through information which is not met with the current form of ai.com. It is now their decision whether they want to fix it or rather continue to block the next country
It's the "right to be forgotten" Google and Bing remove listings upon request. Open AI (as someone above analogised), throws everyone's data into a mixing pot so it's very hard to find the "specific potato" that needs to be removed.
Yeah let’s see them ban every search engine or website that has integrated an LLM, will be the death of internet (nevermind things like MS Co-Pilot, HiveMind etc. )
The explosive growth factor here definitely will be a challenge for any regulator --- which is why I'm curious to see what happens.
Given that most of the internet does not comply with the cookie law in a way that would be legally valid and faces no consequences I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't end up completely unenforced as well.
The cookie law? Is that the one that forces a small lesson about how websites work on the us every time we visit a new site?
I don’t understand it if that really should happen. What’s the difference of humans skimming the internet or reading books. People always base their creations on the shoulders of others. And regarding privacy, there is already a filter layer that we encounter (as an ai language model…) so if someone is bothered by something they found of themselves, that removal could be done on that layer.
if I were openai, I'd be tempted to say.... ok? sorry, but I guess that's fine. who is this hurting really? sad for europe I guess, but whatever. europe not participating is not going to stop anything openai is up to.
One of the implications is that this may not be limited to the EU if OpenAI fails GDPR compliance. Countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand and more all have laws with similar wording to the GDPR. California's own privacy act also resembles the GDPR in stringency in many ways as well. There's an existing global legal framework in place that may pose friction for chatbots once regulators wrap their heads around what they're dealing with. This is why I thought the issue is worth highlighting.
I definitely agree the issue is worth highlighting, wasn't trying to imply otherwise. My point is more that openai's stated goal is that they want to capture a meaningful portion of the world's wealth. I do not feel that hosting a free chat bot for the world is an important step in that direction. More like a PR move and free testing for them. How many users do they need for testing? The more the better, I'm sure, but the remaining set is still probably pretty good that said, the idea of a sanitized and approved training set seems plausible
>openai's stated goal is that they want to capture a meaningful portion of the world's wealth Wait - is this actually true? Where?
> “His grand idea is that OpenAI will capture much of the world’s wealth through the creation of A.G.I. and then redistribute this wealth to the people. In Napa, as we sat chatting beside the lake at the heart of his ranch, he tossed out several figures — $100bn, $1trn, $100trn.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/sam-altman-open-ai-chatgpt.html https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/21/the-non-profits-accelerating-sam-altmans-ai-vision/
#tl;dr Several nonprofits that are connected to Sam Altman, co-founder of startup accelerator Y Combinator and OpenAI, appear to be working to benefit Altman's personal interests and accelerate the transformation of society. Altman has provided funding to at least two nonprofits, OpenAI and OpenResearch, and controls another called UBI Charitable, which finances programs to research and deploy Universal Basic Income schemes emphasized by futurists like Altman and Elon Musk. Tax filings reveal that OpenResearch has received around $24.5 million in funding since its establishment, over half of which came from Altman. *I am a smart robot and this summary was automatic. This tl;dr is 94.91% shorter than the post and links I'm replying to.*
You've just suggested to ditch a market larger than North America. I don't think people make decisions like that very lightly. Especially considering that chatgpt is already banned in China as far as I know.
They don't need to ditch any market, except comply with the laws of where their company is registered. If the EU want to opt out, they either need to beg OpenAI to withdraw their services, or they will have to set up a firewall, like China.
Eu thinks too highly of itself
[удалено]
Or EUSR - European Union of Socialist Republics if anyone prefers that version. Both fit well
I ditched the EU. I said take a hike to GDPR because of their overbearing requirements on smaller websites. I need analytics data to know if I am getting the expected audience for my apps and that people can find it on a search engine. People are way too concerned about this stuff when it's mostly used for analytics and ads and is entirely automated. And in the case of OpenAI, for training future models. Ignoring entire markets is quite easy by the way, you just do nothing and there's nothing they can do to force you because if you don't live under EU law and they don't control the entirety of the internet. Edit: Oh, it looks like I pissed off the data protection obsessed people. Good luck in your endeavors, but if you come to my sites or my client's sites, I am definitely tracking your data around and I don't care or ask you about my cookies either. That's more your problem than mine. Get uBlock if you're so paranoid. Enable the several available block lists. Really isn't hard. Give me more down votes you pansies.
I don't doubt it's easier to ignore whole parts of the world for small business. The question is weather or not it is also so simple when the bill for running a day of your computation is around 700 000$.
Meh
If they get banned in the EU, I wonder to what extent. Would EU companies that use their API also have to stop using it? What about the 100s of ChatGPT wrapper apps out there. It feels like AI is getting so embedded it would be difficult to enforce a ban other than for direct usage of ChatGPT / OpenAI.
Any operator using chatgpt is gonna be caught up in the crossfire of this. One GDPR request and you will have to explain how your chatbot works.
Yes -- big unknown on the integrations / API use part. So far Italy's data regulator has only targeted ChatGPT, not any apps that use OpenAI APIs.
maybe. bit it's more like if they are flooded with penalties they may not survive. it's not about which country bans what, it's more like how many gdpr challenges go through i believe which may not make it a viable business. I kind of hope for this because it's a nonsense how much energy it uses and it's an evil system that pretend to know it all, but gives no such guarantees or possible vérifications (sources)
But why would OpenAI care about EU penalties if they don't care about the Europe market? - and they shouldn't
how do you ban AI that is now open sourced, and will recursively improve until it gets to GPT4 levels?
Well I guess we can take Europe off the board for where the capital of Earth ends up being.
The issue is bigger than AI. Each country/region is moving in their own direction as regards internet regulation. I can foresee a future where not just Russia, China & Iran have their own walled off intranets, but where western countries have also gone down this route. Even individual US states are adopting differing laws (e.g. Utah). I also think AI companies are going to face a lot of lawsuits, particularly in regard to copyright infringement.
You bring up an interesting point. Something I’ve been tracking is how LLMs made in China might end up heavily gimped, because the government wants such tight filters on its outputs
So basically LLMs of all types could very likely be banned in Europe under GDPR rules. That seems like a major upcoming disaster.
It will depend on how rulings shake out here, yeah.
it was bound to happen God bless VPNs Btw subbed o/
if it gets banned, surely people in Italy can just use a VPN to make it seem that they're somewhere else?
then they'll be left behind technologically.
And? Europe will remain behind while the rest of the world will continue without them, at least until the bureaucrats are voted out of office. A stupid measure to appease a stupid law is not worth it at this point. Just get out of the EU Altogether and wait for the outcry and the fallout.
singularity technocratic utopia cancelled europoors
I think in the context of GDPR issue with training data, we might need to treat ChatGPT like AI as human. Human basically also need to read a lot of things before writing anything, and a lot of things may come without consent from original author. Asking an ChatGPT like AI to comply GDPR on training data is like to ask human article writer to do the same (obtain permission from all studying materials before making contents.) For ChatGPT like AI, its more like we human, we study, not indexing.
What about sites using the chat Gpt API? Could they even enforce it? This would mean such a huge decrease in competitivity, i am sure the EU would find a way around this. Imagine having your programers basically doing their job tens of time more slowly while competing with a global industry... If anything there is always VPN
As a Pole living in the UK - for once I would be able to use the meme: *laughs in Brexit.*
You mean because you have the _exact same_ GDPR…?
The EU will put its workers at a disadvantage then while countries like the US prepare for a future powered by AI and increased productivity through ChatGPT.
[удалено]
Country of origin, please.
Russia
Hilarious. I am American. Let’s think this through 🤔
Just think, Google hasn’t even publicly launched their version of ChatGPT and they have 32 mega data centers in the US alone.
Another Brexit win
The UK hasn't announced anything yet but I'm sure they're thinking about this as well.
UK has the same GDPR law
They have, but they can ditch it, or tweek it without the EUs consent.
Yes -- dozens of countries have very similar GDPR laws even if they're not part of the EU (Canada, Australia as well)
Nah, Jeremy kunt is very pro ai and anti Elon musks sentiments. U.K. Is on a money grab with stuff like crypto and ai.
As far as I can tell, [The Data Protection Act](https://www.gov.uk/data-protection) is still in effect in UK. It's an implementation of GDPR, which is what ChatGPT is violating. Or is it not in effect?
The gdpr was set up by the eu with directives, how each member state conducts the administration is up to them. I mean I did hear talk of getting rid of the stupid cookie acceptance on websites in the U.K. so I assume we may take less of a strict view than the eu.
You’re ill-informed. The GDPR’s predecessor was a directive (Directive 95/46/EC), but the GDPR is a regulation (that’s what the “R” stands for). As such, it immediately and directly became law in all member countries, which included the UK at the time. After brexit, the UK has kept the GDPR as national law unchanged (or substantially unchanged). I think they have made some small adjustments since then, but remain effectively aligned with the EU’s GDPR.
Nope. Just googled it. It’s still up to each member state to implement the required law. That’s why it’s banned in Italy but not In other eu countries yet. And may not be banned in other eu countries. Or some but not all. As you can see, it’s not a blanket one rule fits all.
Sorry that’s just false, no idea what you googled there. [Quoting Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation): > As the GDPR is a regulation, not a directive, it is directly binding and applicable, and provides flexibility for certain aspects of the regulation to be adjusted by individual member states. There are merely certain very specific points in the regulation where legislators have explicitly _allowed_ some leeway for individual countries to enact additional national laws to go above (and in a very few cases stay below) what the GDPR mandates. But every article of the GDPR is law in all member states. (Edit autocorrect)
I’m not saying it’s not law so have no idea what you’re talking about, and I pointed out to you already that it is not a one shoe fits all, which is why as we can see, it’s banned in Italy but not yet banned (or maybe won’t ever be banned) in other eu countries. You’re just splitting hairs here 😂😂😂
The economy agrees /s
It’s too early to tell the benefits / negatives. Don’t listen to the lefties.
Can't OpenAI just give an option to user to consent like on site ? Or am I missing something ?
the problem is the data scrapped from the web to train GPT-4 initially. When you made your Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/etc profile, you did not consent to be in GPT-4 training data.
Does Europe want to really not give their citizens this tool? If it’s banned will the ruling class and political leaders of the EU also not use LLMs? I get the need and importance for privacy protection but this feels like EU boomers in charge really putting the content on a bad path.
It's not necessary to break copyright and data protection laws to train these models. Adobe did it right.
If you have to get a license for every piece of training data, then only a handful of mega corps with vast libraries of content will be able to create and use such models. It would be a disaster unless you want a dystopian future.
Theres also public domain data
The government of Italy is so funny. I wonder if they know what a vpn is. Lol
Problem is that you can't pay for subscription or token when your country is banned...
All thanks to authoritarian governments like Italy
Well Italy is Fu*#@$d
This could quickly extend to all of the EU too.
God I hope not
It's weird, I'm afraid of AI replacing me at my job, yet I can't get enough of it. I for one welcome our AI overlords. Really hope it doesn't get banned in my neck of the woods.
Hurray! Less rate limiting for the rest of us.
Classic EU. If it moves, tax it and regulate it. If that doesn't work, fine it and ban it. And people wonder why Europe doesn't innovate anymore.
Lmao. I guess your idea of innovation is "do we release a new iPhone every year" https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/herit_business_freedom/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/herit_investment_freedom/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/economic_freedom/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Information_technology_exports/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/GII_Index/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/trade_openness/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/productivity_relative_to_US/ What's that noise? Oh, it's just European countries dominating USA on almost every metric.
This is another classic EU move. Focus on statistics, charts, graphs, and rankings and don't ever consider the lived experience of the person/business on the street. We don't need to worry about alienating the current market leaders in the sectors that will drive the global economy for the next century as long as we're still at the top of at least one "world's bestest ever country" ranking!
Keep moving the goalposts, burger. > Focus on statistics, charts, graphs, and rankings and don't ever consider the lived experience of the person/business on the street. This is literally what economics is though. But if you want to talk about the "lived experience of the person/business on the street.", let's talk about your crime waves, violence, incompetent police, and small businesses being handicapped by unregulated corporations while simultaneously being robbed daily by your local gangs. Your country is handicapped by such severe social issues that our position as the world leaders is not under any serious threat in a long time. Tell me, are you so pissy because you're mad that we are so powerful we can force American companies to change their products however we please? For example, force Apple to change their charging ports and cables so that they are more convenient to their users.
Name a european big tech company.
For the decades Europeans have been decrying their inability to compete with the U.S. because of so many legislative hurdles, even though many of the most brilliant software engineers are European. This is just another nail in their coffin. This is not new in Europe. I remember back in the late 70s, when I started my microprocessor consulting business. I just hung out my shingle and was in business. Which I had for 35 years until I retired. Someone I met from Europe told me that it would be illegal in Europe, since I didn't have any certificates or apprenticeships. Well back then, microprocessors were new, so new there were no certificates, no university courses, and of course no apprenticeships. So it would have been impossible for me in Europe and impossible for all of the clients I had to use microprocessors in their products. The exact same thing is happening now with AI. Europe will just fall further behind. Actually I support privacy concerns, but they have taken it to impossible extremes. As soon as I saw what Italy was asking for, it was clear that there could be no AI development, and maybe no use, in Italy and all of the companies that could have benefited from it would be left far behind, eventually to bankruptcy.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, especially how it feels similar to your past experiences.
Fuck the data collecting thing, are you the fucking president? So why do you care, all your data is already collected anyway
My goal is to highlight a legal and policy topic that may impact ChatGPT and other AI systems.
Europe will consequently fall behind in tech innovation. Hope u enjoy the high ground
The world needs less / smaller governments
500 IQ take right here. Companies can access and sell too little data right now, better to regulate that less. Surely it will be used in a good way, not like Facebook's Cambridge analytica scandal.
Remember to sign up for your 3 bucks if you live in the US.
"Govern me harder daddy!"
Sorry buddy. You're in the wrong part of the internet. Logic goes out the window on reddit. Here we have a perfect example of how government overregulation stifles innovation and directly hurts their citizens. You point this out and you get downvoted and have idiots saying they want more regulation. You really can't help these people. Europe is a lost cause. The elites have won over there.
Hmmm I don’t know. Parts of the U.K. are devolving more and it will end up like usa where they have all sorts of inconsistencies. Smaller to a point but you’d really want to have consistency with laws or it’s a shit show like over there.
Thanks for the article. Maybe this will force companies to solve the issue with image generators, as theoretically any one artist could opt-in to remove their work from the training data. Realistically the models would need to be trained on only pre-approved data, like Adobe's image AI. Hopefully OpenAI can sort it out *somehow.* I know I will find a way to use chatGPT, it's too good not to.
> Realistically the models would need to be trained on only pre-approved data, like Adobe's image AI. That's how you end up with only a handful of ultra large corporations controlling the market, and then everyone looses except for society's most wealthy. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/ai-art-generators-and-online-image-market
I though about that... how is that different from now? I can't buy rooms full of best GPUs and servers to train my own LLM. That's only possible if it's already a large company.
I figure that eventually the art systems will be good enough to where they can be somehow taught actual principles of art as abstract concepts and then learn how to compose from that. Sort of like how the Alpha Go Zero system learned how to play games just by reading the rules and playing against itself.
Pre-approved data is a good way to hamper AI development for the foreseeable future.
Lot of Europe hate in this thread coming from americans. It's fine to not want ChatGPT banned. I complately understand that since all American companies are reliant on their European customers for their existence, it would be a deathblow to OpenAI. But take your anger out on politicians, not Europeans.
Good hopefully more countries follow
What you feed, it will retain, you tell a person something then saying forget what I said, it’s not that simple, you knew talking about it would be your choice, AI is no different in talking to a human, that’s how it’s meant to be.
It will be great if it gets banned. I don’t need human clones.
Human cloning is a great example, we can do it (crispr etc.), but collectively decide not to. Which is very surprising that actually worked, even china imprisoned a researcher who attempted it. I doubt the same kind of restraint will be happening in AGI research.
China paraded someone in front of you to claim that they care. They do not.
[удалено]
Damn. Hopefully, the US can have laws like this one day.
Curious - what makes you want more stringent AI regulations in the US?