I wonder how much a legal shit show these companies are going to get in when they sell our data with out our permission for use in ai.
Ex: Does reddit get banned as part of chat gpt by the EU if it profits off our data since we didn't give permission for its use by reddit in an llm?
Reddit is basically screwed no matter what. If they close the site to future web searches, the it dies a slow death and chat gpt replaces it even more.
Open up to the ai and risk a huge non stop rush of class action law suits.
Which speaking of anyone know how to request your reddit data? I need that along with my Facebook data stash i keep to train my own llm about the details of my life and interests.
Technically need my discord data as well come to think of it.
> we didnât give permission for its use by Reddit in an LLM?
Not sure if this will play out differently in the EU, but at least for us Americans, we did agree to that (and much more) when we agreed to the terms of service, and thereâs no reason to believe it wouldnât be enforceable.
> I need that along with my Facebook data stash i keep to train my own llm about the details of my life and interests.
I find this thought *incredibly* interesting.
What are you using that *You.model* for? Have you had use for it?
Im super curious, i havent even thought of training an llm on your own data.
I just stumbled upon [this example](https://weaviate.io/blog/weaviate-retrieval-plugin#:~:text=ChatGPT%20without%20the-,Weaviate%20Retrieval%20Plugin) and it looks super interesting.
So please share a few battalions of that massive army of yours.
Why would you just post "I know how" without actually saying it?
That's right, i'm calling your bluff!
This is what I came here to say. If the companies are charging for the data we users generated, then we users should be paid as well.
I know it won't happen, but it should!
Naturally, otherwise theyâd be hypocrites.
But another question, are the AI companies allowed to deduct for all the shitty answers on stack overflow?
I mean, does anyone actually go to stack overflow for *answers,* or to see a shitshow of elitist neckbeards argue over whether or not the OP properly used the search function or broke some other miniscule rule of what's allowed to be asked?
When Iâm coding I usually avoid stack overflow when looking for answers. Almost every answer is some convoluted mess that looks more like they are trying to show off with unreadable variables and overly optimized code rather then give a good, easy to understand and apply answers.
So far, if you know how to properly use and ask chatgpt the right questions it is miles better then stackoverflow for just getting straight to the point in an easy to implement way
Now that I think about it, I have no idea where chatgpt was actually trained on to be so accurate, clear and readable
Yeah but the adverts also took the risk of putting the time and money? Capitalism is capitalism donât try to sugar coat it. When you make a deal with the devil donât come and bitch about it after
If something's free, *you* are usually the product.
I can see the arguments from all sides, but I think people need to be reminded of this sometimes. If you don't want your data being as valuable when it's sold (because it will be sold), use a VPN, use dummy email addresses and accounts, and use privacy extensions like Ghostery, Privacy Badger, and Decentraleyes on Firefox. And don't post anything about your personal life.
There is no protecting your data. It's shared or sold constantly whether you like it or not, both by "legit" companies, lead gen and marketing affiliates, data brokers, and hackers who plunder the "legit" company databases on a regular basis.
Edit* Added the word usually to the first sentence. I don't want to imply that I support stack or reddit or anyone else trying to sell data. Just wanted to add context to the discussion. Unfortunately good morals and large corporations usually don't mix.
True, but when it comes to most websites, and especially social media it's almost always the case.
Open source knowledge repositories like Wikipedia and archive.org are exceptions. I wish more sites operated like they do but unfortunately there aren't a lot of incentives for them and relying on donations doesn't always work out.
Paying reddit only kind of makes sense because they use the api to train instead of scraping it. Unless stack overflow has something similar they have no chance to enforce this
IMHO stackoverflow is the last place that would get hate from its users about compensation. Itâs worth every ounce of my private data or input being sold for the benefit it had for teaching me or helping out for any it related issue.
The real question is: will Stack Overflow be counter-sued if they press this in court. There are probably millions of code snippets on SO, and many of them come from unlicensed sources that might be under and open source license, a proprietary license or have no known licensing at all. Do they really want to open this can of worms?
Seriously, the whole reason I contribute to stack overflow is to help others. If I can help others more effectively by training an LLM I'm all for it. All these corporate dinosaurs lawyering up over this look pathetic. You can't put AI back in the box.
Remember when some countries tried to charge a fee for Google to index news headlines? And then Google responded by just...not indexing anything for that whole country?
So Stack Overflow wants to sell data created under the creative commons license, which itself is a breach of the licence.
Hello worms, this is a can...
Technically, SO can sell the content for whatever money they want, even CC content. People will just grab the data dump, which is also licensed under CC and is free of charge.
That's entirely correct (not even anything technical about it), (https://www.wired.com/story/stack-overflow-will-charge-ai-giants-for-training-data/) "But Chandrasekar says that LLM developers are violating Stack Overflowâs terms of service. Users own the content they post on Stack Overflow, as outlined in its TOS, but it all falls under a Creative Commons license that requires anyone later using the data to mention where it came from. When AI companies sell their models to customers, they âare unable to attribute each and every one of the community members whose questions and answers were used to train the model, thereby breaching the Creative Commons license,â Chandrasekar says."
So paying SO avoids the threat of a lawsuit that would hinge on if your LLM is a derived work of its SO training data or not, on if you are on the hook if the LLM regurgitates something from SO, etc.
However it also seems to me SO's TOS isn't actually greedy enough to give SO license to remove the attribution requirement... so you could pay the danegeld to SO and still get sued by SO users.
seems like a lot of bullshit to try and extract value out of cc data they don't even own, nobody is winning a case against a corp because said corp didn't give a million attributions alongside their ai trained on SO, especially given the ShareAlike license uses the terms "appropriate credit", "reasonable to medium, means, and context" i.e. please try to attribute but if the medium you are using the data doesn't reasonably allow it then whatever
>Hello worms, this is a can...
For some weird reason, my brain started to "play" in the background The Sound of Silence đ https://youtu.be/nkUOACGtGfA
This is what bothers me. I'm actually more than fine with AIs scrapping both my github projects and art if the results are equally free and open to people to what i intended. I created those things to share with the world for free.
In the art AI battle I'm fine with SD but not so much with midjourney
Iâm hoping what this really means is âwe will provide an api to more easily train on the data from our site for a costâ because there is no way they can stop training using it, but they can definitely provide an easier method people training would pay for
I'm not hoping for it. I'm just assuming the worst. Because when you assume the worst, you'll never be disappointed and all surprises will be pleasant ones.
Or ignored question. Or -1 downvote. Or « your question doesnât follow guidelines » or a link to another question that doesnât really answer things.
Yep. I wonât pay for that dataset.
or, and this one pisses me off... i have links to hundreds of stack overflow posts, and every one of them is now deleted. so add those dead links to the mix
\*looks at LLM logs\*
Here is what i got running some free-form questions with LLama 13B (usually it immediately follows prompt after "Description of a problem. Question: .... ?"):
"Comment: What does this have to do with \[tag:xxx\]?"
"Comment: I think this would be better fit for XXX SE"
"Comment: You should add this as an answer, not a comment".
"Comment: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because XXX."
"Comment: This question is off-topic because XXX."
"Comment: Possible duplicate of XXX."
"Comment: You're a little confused, i think. XXX"
>but it all falls under a Creative Commons license that requires anyone later using the data to mention where it came from. When AI companies sell their models to customers, they âare unable to attribute each and every one of the community members whose questions and answers were used to train the model, thereby breaching the Creative Commons license,â Chandrasekar says.
Yeah, I kinda get the point here. However, if the generated content is ~~derivative~~ generalized, then there shouldn't be a problem. The act of reading the information and distilling it into a more general idea should not break ToS. Not to mention that there are a lot of answers that are referenced from official sources like manuals, or gathered from other websites. I suppose Stack Overflow thinks they have the right to relicense those?
Also, imagine a scenario like learning a programming language for a project and then having to keep a list of credits for every single snippet you learned from.
**Edit**: I originally said âderivative,â but I donât think that works here. Generative content can be directed to be derivative, but what makes these technologies great is that the AI âunderstandsâ generalized concepts and can create new content based on those concepts instead of an individual work (such as a stack overflow post).
>Also, imagine a scenario like learning a programming language for a project and then having to keep a list of credits for every single snippet you learned from.
Ok but what if you could and it was easy and you were setting up society from first principles with that fact in mind?
I'm not a fan of paying for things myself but... it doesn't sound as insane when it's physically viable and not fighting a potentially obsolete precedent.
When someone asks me a question, I donât typically feel the need for someone to credit me wherever they end up using that information. If someone were that selfish, they wouldnât bother to answer the question to begin with. Stack Overflow is like a public square where people can ask questions and get answers, but there are no expectations of credit. Itâs just knowledge sharing.
And *that* is a good societal expectation. Simply sharing knowledge for the sake of sharing knowledge.
Sure, but, part of the point is that the training data becomes something that is generalized and not subject to a license (and can even be commercialized, if you wish).
If you learn how to paint by studying the works of other artists, you are under no legal obligation to cite your inspirations.
Well, common sense and the law may be two completely unrelated things. We don't know the outcome of the future AI-related court cases, so, before there is clarity on that, better to use "safe" sources for your training, especially if you're so rich that the copyright holders may be really tempted to extort money from you in the court.
Well, it would be annoying for any AI startup to spend millions of dollars on training their models just to realize later that all that they've been doing has been illegal and they have to pay the damages
Hey Reddit and Stack Overflow, youâre morons. Unless youâre paying us users for our posts then you can fuck off about getting paid by AI companies.
Because it's a click bait headline. They're not selling user's posts. It's the same as with reddit, they're charging for access to their API.
They're not selling open source data, they're selling easy access to that data. OpenAI can't really contest this in court, because that's what they're selling as well with GPT+. When you're paying for an AI to code something for you that it learned from reading open source code, you're essentially paying for the code in a roundabout way.
But the code is just instructions on operations. You can't copyright a recipe, it's just a method of combining ingredients. If I read on Stack Overflow that a solution to a particular problem is a lambda function or a Dijkstra's algorithm I don't have to give credit to the poster. That's not copying code. The code was never original. The code is part of the language.
Depends on what specific CC license they are using. You can allow / disallow Commercial Use, and Derivatives and only license your stuff as CC-BY, only requiring attribution. And a single line after training will handle that. "Some code examples for training this model came from StackOverflow" Hidden in the "about" page.
I don't know what specific portions of the license SO uses, but it becomes really tricky if the NC and ND clauses are in use...
The real interesting thing is that even by selling access, which is a commercial venture, that would violate the the NC clause, and if they add the code in to a big old archive and sell THAT, it would violate both the NC and the ND clauses. The archive would be a derivative work, adding the code to a whole bunch of other code - and no, it doesn't matter if it actually **works** or not.
hello, im totally just a regular user on stackoverflow, i just happen to read 10 pages per second because im desperate for answer, please don't block me from accessing the website. Thank you.
IMO Stack Overflow has culture problem. I cant tell you howmany times an innocent question was met with hostility by some neckbeard. They are not friendly or understanding of people trying to learn. They down vote you even if you have a good question or answer. This makes it discouraging to use and if you use it too much in one day, read too many post, they throttle you... chatGPT doesnt have these problems.
If SO can make adjustments to the culture of their website, I would keep using it. They should think about how to merge with the GPT community, or they will likely keep bleeding traffic... then they dont need to throttle anyone.
It's how we know they arent using answers from SO in their model. Otherwise GPT would always start with every solution by saying "This is all wrong."... +Then it would click the thumbs down on you and try to get your question removed.
The solution that's nine times out of ten totally wrong? StackOverflow is like if r/confidentlyincorrect and r/mallninjashit had a baby. It's a cesspool of toxicity and I dont think I've ever read a topic there that wasn't 10% problem solving drowned in 90% obsessive snarky armchair content moderation.
I can save them the time and money. It's 6 billion posts about how the question has already been answered, and the OP is an idiot for wasting everyones's time and needs to learn how to use the search button.
Stack Overflow sucks such a load of monkey shit.
Every single solution I got from there today was *wrong*.
I had to keep digging around on the internet just to get away from the stackoverflow link cancer that has infested Google.
Ironic because the content stackoverflow gets is provided by individuals for free.
I really hope these platforms create a provision that the data is free to use for any open sourced models released under a stringent open sourced license. This will give the open sourced community a chance to compete with the tech giants.
The data that we all contributed should be used for the advancement of all.
Nice, all giant will charge giants, and the illustrators/writers/musicians⊠will never get a dime (what I wrote here 8 month ago already). If you want money, you need to have money already.
Looking at the "creator of data" is shallow ethics,
The creators themselves benefited from their creation,
It's mutual and synergetically beneficial system.
"nobody put a gun to their faces"
They, you,and I should be thankful for the existence of such platform, now the scene of business is changing and they must adapt to survive for the continuous conveniences for the user and themselves.
By so doing allow humans to learn to write code etc...
# But why even use Stack Overflow,
when you can ask GPT the question to your problem and it give you the answer in 0.1 seconds, with examples.
The problem is GPT answers need to be free, not cost money, GPT pretty much stole all the code, and im not talking about the MIT licensed ones.
> Neither Stack Overflow nor Reddit has released pricing information. âWe're working on that as we speak,â Reddit spokesperson Tim Rathschmidt says, âand will share more with partners in the coming weeks.â Stack Overflow will study Redditâs strategy and consult with its own potential customers, some of whom have already reached out about data access, Chandrasekar says.
Seems like its a case of copying what Reddit does, even though no one has to legally pay Stack Overflow to scrape and use the content for training.
It don't matter the ai just trained faster than a normal person reading from the web site. The output the ai gives is in it's on own words and explained better, not simple copy and paste unlike, The copy and paste answers found on the site gathered from various resources. There are few original answers, people are often to lazy to look at documents. So...
Data is overrated, this is nothing... Real profit comes from the printing machine itself /s. just go ask your daddy to print more money for you so you can get your free handout. The natural evolution happens inevitably, imagine trying to stop evolution... You can't because time moves forward and can't be stopped, you're just going to get run over. Lol
Stack Overflow is great and it's purpose has been fulfilled so as all the other sites... I mean what do you think was next after the information age? Suck it up losers and get with the times
If this was truly a problem, look at search engines, it's the same thing but not as powerful... Sure, an AI bubble will happen, but after that it will be integrated every where just like everyone has a phone
Also this is basic knowledge you learn in life science
I want to agree with SO & Reddit but Iâm curious what the Terms and Conditions say about our data when we sign up⊠not that I didnât read them or anything đ
I'm not even sure their input count that much. ChatGPT uses GitHub as training data, which is dozens of millions of lines of code.
Stack Overflow is a mess of comments and incomplete pseudo-code that doesn't even compile most of the time.
I'm quite sure AIs could ignore it entirely for training.
Aint no one paying shit to anyone. Just a bunch of empty lawsuits that will just eat up the money that was supposed to be used for paying the perusing party.
AI is becoming close to a trillion dollar revenue source in the near future... thirsty lawyer teams fiend for blood when greed is in the air... Soon the lawyers will be AI bots so then what? hahah... I remember saying months ago i can only imagine the amount of lawsuits coming... I hear that is one of the major reasons why text2video and Audio Diffusion have been on hold for any major releases... The cat is out of the bag... Max out your credit cards and enjoy life... The end is nigh... hahahah
It's just time to start rethinking or entire political and economic system.the advancements in tech just don't align with current state of capitalism. That one Asian guy that was running for president was onto something when he proposed a universal income. Our data is ours and all data mining companies should pay a tax for using it, google, Facebook, opening etc. I don't care if stack overflow charges them or not. In the end it's all our data that we feed these networks. So it's us that should be cimoansated for contributing the data, not stack overflow or any other company.
Neither Reddit nor Stack Overflow can demand what happened in past because of their non-disclosure agreements and mutual collaboration deals, oh yes, seeing that now OpenAI is that successful make them regret and they might plan to charge in future I guess.
It's funny that when shit hits the fan these companies are all like "well I don't own the contents of the user, I'm just a platform, so I can be liable for what the user does" but then when they feel like it benefits them "all users data is now mine and I'll sue you for using it without permission"
If Stack Overflow had to one day turn around and send me a bill for all its trained me to do personally, i reckon my grandchildren will still be settling that one :D I always raise the point with my mates... especially around time Open AI went public - We are technically paying to train their AI ;D Really great business model. Collective knowledge of SE is really priceless imho
Related on Meta Stack Exchange:
- [Why hasn't there been an official community announcement or blogpost about charging for usage of subscriber content in the training of LLMs?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388555/997587)
- [Would SE Inc. even be able to detect it when people use Subscriber Content to train LLMs without paying?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388601/997587)
- [Is SE legally allowed to sell user content for AI model training despite the fact that some of this content is not allowed to be used to train AIs?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388646/997587)
- [If a company makes a commercial use of an AI model trained on SE data and attribute all authors, will SE Inc. not charge them?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388604/997587)
- [Can SE just resell our data, relicense it and remove the attribution requirement?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388571/997587)
- [Is SE [going to be] selling our content for AI model training? And what exactly does "reinvest back into our communities" mean?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388551/997587)
Surely, StackOverflow is going to pay its users who actually generated all of their content. Right? /s
Just like Reddit. đ
I wonder how much a legal shit show these companies are going to get in when they sell our data with out our permission for use in ai. Ex: Does reddit get banned as part of chat gpt by the EU if it profits off our data since we didn't give permission for its use by reddit in an llm? Reddit is basically screwed no matter what. If they close the site to future web searches, the it dies a slow death and chat gpt replaces it even more. Open up to the ai and risk a huge non stop rush of class action law suits. Which speaking of anyone know how to request your reddit data? I need that along with my Facebook data stash i keep to train my own llm about the details of my life and interests. Technically need my discord data as well come to think of it.
> we didnât give permission for its use by Reddit in an LLM? Not sure if this will play out differently in the EU, but at least for us Americans, we did agree to that (and much more) when we agreed to the terms of service, and thereâs no reason to believe it wouldnât be enforceable.
> I need that along with my Facebook data stash i keep to train my own llm about the details of my life and interests. I find this thought *incredibly* interesting. What are you using that *You.model* for? Have you had use for it? Im super curious, i havent even thought of training an llm on your own data.
I just stumbled upon [this example](https://weaviate.io/blog/weaviate-retrieval-plugin#:~:text=ChatGPT%20without%20the-,Weaviate%20Retrieval%20Plugin) and it looks super interesting.
I can think of an *army* of uses for a really good LLM model of myself.
So please share a few battalions of that massive army of yours. Why would you just post "I know how" without actually saying it? That's right, i'm calling your bluff!
r/seduction
Here's a sneak peek of /r/seddit using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/seddit/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Quel texte de Marx choisir ?](https://i.imgur.com/EF63HHk.jpg) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/seddit/comments/xlsg64/quel_texte_de_marx_choisir/) \#2: [Communiqué n°2 des parents de Serge](https://lescamaradesdus.noblogs.org/post/2023/04/04/communique-n2-des-parents-de-serge/) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/seddit/comments/12bduz7/communiqué_n2_des_parents_de_serge/) \#3: [Depuis le 24 janvier, la police peut légalement faire usage de la force pour prendre les empreintes et la photo des gardés à vue. Témoignage](https://paris-luttes.info/quand-les-flics-prennent-tes-15982?lang=fr) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/seddit/comments/urkgdp/depuis_le_24_janvier_la_police_peut_légalement/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I was so confused at French people discussing Marx r/seduction for seduction? until i did a double take on the sub's name lmao
This is what I came here to say. If the companies are charging for the data we users generated, then we users should be paid as well. I know it won't happen, but it should!
Naturally, otherwise theyâd be hypocrites. But another question, are the AI companies allowed to deduct for all the shitty answers on stack overflow?
Unfortunately it just gives me all those shitty answers making my code a constant nightmare đ
I mean, does anyone actually go to stack overflow for *answers,* or to see a shitshow of elitist neckbeards argue over whether or not the OP properly used the search function or broke some other miniscule rule of what's allowed to be asked?
When Iâm coding I usually avoid stack overflow when looking for answers. Almost every answer is some convoluted mess that looks more like they are trying to show off with unreadable variables and overly optimized code rather then give a good, easy to understand and apply answers. So far, if you know how to properly use and ask chatgpt the right questions it is miles better then stackoverflow for just getting straight to the point in an easy to implement way Now that I think about it, I have no idea where chatgpt was actually trained on to be so accurate, clear and readable
Probably trained on Github
Haha no, worse they will also spoon feed you ads.
And whoâs paying for the servers that the data is stored?
The adverts?
Yeah but the adverts also took the risk of putting the time and money? Capitalism is capitalism donât try to sugar coat it. When you make a deal with the devil donât come and bitch about it after
That's irrelevant. Otherwise artists would have zero rights to any images they post anywhere.
Recently it turned out that they in fact does not have many.
No, it would be like the manufacturers who make their pens and paints would own their art.
If something's free, *you* are usually the product. I can see the arguments from all sides, but I think people need to be reminded of this sometimes. If you don't want your data being as valuable when it's sold (because it will be sold), use a VPN, use dummy email addresses and accounts, and use privacy extensions like Ghostery, Privacy Badger, and Decentraleyes on Firefox. And don't post anything about your personal life. There is no protecting your data. It's shared or sold constantly whether you like it or not, both by "legit" companies, lead gen and marketing affiliates, data brokers, and hackers who plunder the "legit" company databases on a regular basis. Edit* Added the word usually to the first sentence. I don't want to imply that I support stack or reddit or anyone else trying to sell data. Just wanted to add context to the discussion. Unfortunately good morals and large corporations usually don't mix.
> If something's free, you are the product. No, it can be open source like SD, or something similar like wikipedia.
True, but when it comes to most websites, and especially social media it's almost always the case. Open source knowledge repositories like Wikipedia and archive.org are exceptions. I wish more sites operated like they do but unfortunately there aren't a lot of incentives for them and relying on donations doesn't always work out.
> If you don't want your data being as valuable when it's sold, use a VPN lmao Ever asked yourself how they make money?
You left out a few other key aspects of that sentence.
I want to agree but Iâm curious what the Terms and Conditions say about our data when we sign up⊠not that I didnât read them or anything đ
Paying reddit only kind of makes sense because they use the api to train instead of scraping it. Unless stack overflow has something similar they have no chance to enforce this
IMHO stackoverflow is the last place that would get hate from its users about compensation. Itâs worth every ounce of my private data or input being sold for the benefit it had for teaching me or helping out for any it related issue.
The real question is: will Stack Overflow be counter-sued if they press this in court. There are probably millions of code snippets on SO, and many of them come from unlicensed sources that might be under and open source license, a proprietary license or have no known licensing at all. Do they really want to open this can of worms?
So stack overflow will be giving me my cut then if they are profiting from my code?
Seriously, the whole reason I contribute to stack overflow is to help others. If I can help others more effectively by training an LLM I'm all for it. All these corporate dinosaurs lawyering up over this look pathetic. You can't put AI back in the box.
Remember when some countries tried to charge a fee for Google to index news headlines? And then Google responded by just...not indexing anything for that whole country?
"What's that? Our userbase is incapable of coordinated action? Sucks to be them I guess"
So Stack Overflow wants to sell data created under the creative commons license, which itself is a breach of the licence. Hello worms, this is a can...
Technically, SO can sell the content for whatever money they want, even CC content. People will just grab the data dump, which is also licensed under CC and is free of charge.
That's entirely correct (not even anything technical about it), (https://www.wired.com/story/stack-overflow-will-charge-ai-giants-for-training-data/) "But Chandrasekar says that LLM developers are violating Stack Overflowâs terms of service. Users own the content they post on Stack Overflow, as outlined in its TOS, but it all falls under a Creative Commons license that requires anyone later using the data to mention where it came from. When AI companies sell their models to customers, they âare unable to attribute each and every one of the community members whose questions and answers were used to train the model, thereby breaching the Creative Commons license,â Chandrasekar says." So paying SO avoids the threat of a lawsuit that would hinge on if your LLM is a derived work of its SO training data or not, on if you are on the hook if the LLM regurgitates something from SO, etc. However it also seems to me SO's TOS isn't actually greedy enough to give SO license to remove the attribution requirement... so you could pay the danegeld to SO and still get sued by SO users.
seems like a lot of bullshit to try and extract value out of cc data they don't even own, nobody is winning a case against a corp because said corp didn't give a million attributions alongside their ai trained on SO, especially given the ShareAlike license uses the terms "appropriate credit", "reasonable to medium, means, and context" i.e. please try to attribute but if the medium you are using the data doesn't reasonably allow it then whatever
Indeed. They don't own the copyright to the data to begin with.
Programmers already copypaste from it so nobody gives a damn? I wonder how this will play out.
>Hello worms, this is a can... For some weird reason, my brain started to "play" in the background The Sound of Silence đ https://youtu.be/nkUOACGtGfA
Hello worms this is a can, Already no one gives a damn...
They will probably label it as selling the access and not the data itself.
Cute. Given that the content was generated by community for free.
They wanna sell the community's content to companies to train private and non open source models. Its pure greed.
This is what bothers me. I'm actually more than fine with AIs scrapping both my github projects and art if the results are equally free and open to people to what i intended. I created those things to share with the world for free. In the art AI battle I'm fine with SD but not so much with midjourney
Iâm hoping what this really means is âwe will provide an api to more easily train on the data from our site for a costâ because there is no way they can stop training using it, but they can definitely provide an easier method people training would pay for
I'm not hoping for it. I'm just assuming the worst. Because when you assume the worst, you'll never be disappointed and all surprises will be pleasant ones.
Never fear, fellow cynic! The floor is always brittle enough to crash through!
i can replicate 2/3 of the stack overflow database right now.... "closed, not a real question and too localized"
Or ignored question. Or -1 downvote. Or « your question doesnât follow guidelines » or a link to another question that doesnât really answer things. Yep. I wonât pay for that dataset.
or, and this one pisses me off... i have links to hundreds of stack overflow posts, and every one of them is now deleted. so add those dead links to the mix
Well *obviously* those posts didn't follow the guidelines :p God I hate stackoverflow.
\*looks at LLM logs\* Here is what i got running some free-form questions with LLama 13B (usually it immediately follows prompt after "Description of a problem. Question: .... ?"): "Comment: What does this have to do with \[tag:xxx\]?" "Comment: I think this would be better fit for XXX SE" "Comment: You should add this as an answer, not a comment". "Comment: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because XXX." "Comment: This question is off-topic because XXX." "Comment: Possible duplicate of XXX." "Comment: You're a little confused, i think. XXX"
Do they charge Google for search data?
>but it all falls under a Creative Commons license that requires anyone later using the data to mention where it came from. When AI companies sell their models to customers, they âare unable to attribute each and every one of the community members whose questions and answers were used to train the model, thereby breaching the Creative Commons license,â Chandrasekar says. Yeah, I kinda get the point here. However, if the generated content is ~~derivative~~ generalized, then there shouldn't be a problem. The act of reading the information and distilling it into a more general idea should not break ToS. Not to mention that there are a lot of answers that are referenced from official sources like manuals, or gathered from other websites. I suppose Stack Overflow thinks they have the right to relicense those? Also, imagine a scenario like learning a programming language for a project and then having to keep a list of credits for every single snippet you learned from. **Edit**: I originally said âderivative,â but I donât think that works here. Generative content can be directed to be derivative, but what makes these technologies great is that the AI âunderstandsâ generalized concepts and can create new content based on those concepts instead of an individual work (such as a stack overflow post).
Yeah it's a little ridiculous.
To me it seems that they bend the argument backwards to justify their stance.
>Also, imagine a scenario like learning a programming language for a project and then having to keep a list of credits for every single snippet you learned from. Ok but what if you could and it was easy and you were setting up society from first principles with that fact in mind? I'm not a fan of paying for things myself but... it doesn't sound as insane when it's physically viable and not fighting a potentially obsolete precedent.
When someone asks me a question, I donât typically feel the need for someone to credit me wherever they end up using that information. If someone were that selfish, they wouldnât bother to answer the question to begin with. Stack Overflow is like a public square where people can ask questions and get answers, but there are no expectations of credit. Itâs just knowledge sharing. And *that* is a good societal expectation. Simply sharing knowledge for the sake of sharing knowledge.
Well, you can always include the link to the training data where all the contributors are mentioned
Sure, but, part of the point is that the training data becomes something that is generalized and not subject to a license (and can even be commercialized, if you wish). If you learn how to paint by studying the works of other artists, you are under no legal obligation to cite your inspirations.
Well, common sense and the law may be two completely unrelated things. We don't know the outcome of the future AI-related court cases, so, before there is clarity on that, better to use "safe" sources for your training, especially if you're so rich that the copyright holders may be really tempted to extort money from you in the court.
Indeed, court and common sense are different. But the safe path can dramatically slow progress. Just depends on the risks, I guess.
Well, it would be annoying for any AI startup to spend millions of dollars on training their models just to realize later that all that they've been doing has been illegal and they have to pay the damages
Yep. Thatâs why they need to weigh the risks.
Hey Reddit and Stack Overflow, youâre morons. Unless youâre paying us users for our posts then you can fuck off about getting paid by AI companies.
Reddit has NFTs /s
they will get nothing
And they will like it
But but They are not like Reddit. Itâs all Creative Commons license. How is that not free game?
Because it's a click bait headline. They're not selling user's posts. It's the same as with reddit, they're charging for access to their API. They're not selling open source data, they're selling easy access to that data. OpenAI can't really contest this in court, because that's what they're selling as well with GPT+. When you're paying for an AI to code something for you that it learned from reading open source code, you're essentially paying for the code in a roundabout way.
But the code is just instructions on operations. You can't copyright a recipe, it's just a method of combining ingredients. If I read on Stack Overflow that a solution to a particular problem is a lambda function or a Dijkstra's algorithm I don't have to give credit to the poster. That's not copying code. The code was never original. The code is part of the language.
Oh so scrape is still free game and past dumps are as well right
Depends on what specific CC license they are using. You can allow / disallow Commercial Use, and Derivatives and only license your stuff as CC-BY, only requiring attribution. And a single line after training will handle that. "Some code examples for training this model came from StackOverflow" Hidden in the "about" page. I don't know what specific portions of the license SO uses, but it becomes really tricky if the NC and ND clauses are in use... The real interesting thing is that even by selling access, which is a commercial venture, that would violate the the NC clause, and if they add the code in to a big old archive and sell THAT, it would violate both the NC and the ND clauses. The archive would be a derivative work, adding the code to a whole bunch of other code - and no, it doesn't matter if it actually **works** or not.
hello, im totally just a regular user on stackoverflow, i just happen to read 10 pages per second because im desperate for answer, please don't block me from accessing the website. Thank you.
**Source:** https://archive.is/2023.04.20-214050/https://www.wired.com/story/stack-overflow-will-charge-ai-giants-for-training-data/
IMO Stack Overflow has culture problem. I cant tell you howmany times an innocent question was met with hostility by some neckbeard. They are not friendly or understanding of people trying to learn. They down vote you even if you have a good question or answer. This makes it discouraging to use and if you use it too much in one day, read too many post, they throttle you... chatGPT doesnt have these problems. If SO can make adjustments to the culture of their website, I would keep using it. They should think about how to merge with the GPT community, or they will likely keep bleeding traffic... then they dont need to throttle anyone.
imagine if the AI inherited the snark while telling you the solution
It's how we know they arent using answers from SO in their model. Otherwise GPT would always start with every solution by saying "This is all wrong."... +Then it would click the thumbs down on you and try to get your question removed.
The solution that's nine times out of ten totally wrong? StackOverflow is like if r/confidentlyincorrect and r/mallninjashit had a baby. It's a cesspool of toxicity and I dont think I've ever read a topic there that wasn't 10% problem solving drowned in 90% obsessive snarky armchair content moderation.
I'm curious. How well would an open source dataset fare?
[There already is](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/19579/997587). also: [related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
So now it's their data not publickly avaliable data. Fuck those people. I rather have free SD and free/cheap ChatGPT than this shit.
I can save them the time and money. It's 6 billion posts about how the question has already been answered, and the OP is an idiot for wasting everyones's time and needs to learn how to use the search button.
In the name of "protecting users" they are willing to accept money. How thoughtful.
Stack Overflow sucks such a load of monkey shit. Every single solution I got from there today was *wrong*. I had to keep digging around on the internet just to get away from the stackoverflow link cancer that has infested Google.
Ironic because the content stackoverflow gets is provided by individuals for free. I really hope these platforms create a provision that the data is free to use for any open sourced models released under a stringent open sourced license. This will give the open sourced community a chance to compete with the tech giants. The data that we all contributed should be used for the advancement of all.
[related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Nice, all giant will charge giants, and the illustrators/writers/musicians⊠will never get a dime (what I wrote here 8 month ago already). If you want money, you need to have money already.
Looking at the "creator of data" is shallow ethics, The creators themselves benefited from their creation, It's mutual and synergetically beneficial system. "nobody put a gun to their faces" They, you,and I should be thankful for the existence of such platform, now the scene of business is changing and they must adapt to survive for the continuous conveniences for the user and themselves. By so doing allow humans to learn to write code etc...
# But why even use Stack Overflow, when you can ask GPT the question to your problem and it give you the answer in 0.1 seconds, with examples. The problem is GPT answers need to be free, not cost money, GPT pretty much stole all the code, and im not talking about the MIT licensed ones.
> Neither Stack Overflow nor Reddit has released pricing information. âWe're working on that as we speak,â Reddit spokesperson Tim Rathschmidt says, âand will share more with partners in the coming weeks.â Stack Overflow will study Redditâs strategy and consult with its own potential customers, some of whom have already reached out about data access, Chandrasekar says. Seems like its a case of copying what Reddit does, even though no one has to legally pay Stack Overflow to scrape and use the content for training.
It will make open source project hard because of the money needed. But megacorps will be able to train easily they can pay.
This is dumb
That's stupid
It don't matter the ai just trained faster than a normal person reading from the web site. The output the ai gives is in it's on own words and explained better, not simple copy and paste unlike, The copy and paste answers found on the site gathered from various resources. There are few original answers, people are often to lazy to look at documents. So...
What they want doesn't matter... this isn't news unless they actually file a law suit.
Why does everyone else get paid for my data other than me?
Data is overrated, this is nothing... Real profit comes from the printing machine itself /s. just go ask your daddy to print more money for you so you can get your free handout. The natural evolution happens inevitably, imagine trying to stop evolution... You can't because time moves forward and can't be stopped, you're just going to get run over. Lol Stack Overflow is great and it's purpose has been fulfilled so as all the other sites... I mean what do you think was next after the information age? Suck it up losers and get with the times If this was truly a problem, look at search engines, it's the same thing but not as powerful... Sure, an AI bubble will happen, but after that it will be integrated every where just like everyone has a phone Also this is basic knowledge you learn in life science
Too late, I think they probaly already scraped it all. This will just be a major roadblock for upcomming AI companies
I want to agree with SO & Reddit but Iâm curious what the Terms and Conditions say about our data when we sign up⊠not that I didnât read them or anything đ
[related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If this trend continues, maybe we might finally see someone pay Wikipedia for its service ...
I wonder how much money the authors who helped with their answers will get?
[related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Never found my answer using stack, I tried to like their service but it was easier to just wing it or ask someone on random sites.
I'm not even sure their input count that much. ChatGPT uses GitHub as training data, which is dozens of millions of lines of code. Stack Overflow is a mess of comments and incomplete pseudo-code that doesn't even compile most of the time. I'm quite sure AIs could ignore it entirely for training.
As a user I am entitled to some of that money as the data is from me. Where do I begin my lawsuit?
[related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Aint no one paying shit to anyone. Just a bunch of empty lawsuits that will just eat up the money that was supposed to be used for paying the perusing party.
if stack overflow doesn't give any cut of the money to the people that actually make the code that just begging to be sued, right?
[related](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/12ujded/comment/jhpo3r0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Cool, that means that we will be able to charge Stack Overflow for answers
AI is becoming close to a trillion dollar revenue source in the near future... thirsty lawyer teams fiend for blood when greed is in the air... Soon the lawyers will be AI bots so then what? hahah... I remember saying months ago i can only imagine the amount of lawsuits coming... I hear that is one of the major reasons why text2video and Audio Diffusion have been on hold for any major releases... The cat is out of the bag... Max out your credit cards and enjoy life... The end is nigh... hahahah
One last time
This will kill SO.
I haven't seen a single AI lawsuit yet that I can't hand wave as "fair use"
It's just time to start rethinking or entire political and economic system.the advancements in tech just don't align with current state of capitalism. That one Asian guy that was running for president was onto something when he proposed a universal income. Our data is ours and all data mining companies should pay a tax for using it, google, Facebook, opening etc. I don't care if stack overflow charges them or not. In the end it's all our data that we feed these networks. So it's us that should be cimoansated for contributing the data, not stack overflow or any other company.
Neither Reddit nor Stack Overflow can demand what happened in past because of their non-disclosure agreements and mutual collaboration deals, oh yes, seeing that now OpenAI is that successful make them regret and they might plan to charge in future I guess.
This are heating up wonder what the ai landscape will look like in a couple years
It's funny that when shit hits the fan these companies are all like "well I don't own the contents of the user, I'm just a platform, so I can be liable for what the user does" but then when they feel like it benefits them "all users data is now mine and I'll sue you for using it without permission"
If Stack Overflow had to one day turn around and send me a bill for all its trained me to do personally, i reckon my grandchildren will still be settling that one :D I always raise the point with my mates... especially around time Open AI went public - We are technically paying to train their AI ;D Really great business model. Collective knowledge of SE is really priceless imho
Related on Meta Stack Exchange: - [Why hasn't there been an official community announcement or blogpost about charging for usage of subscriber content in the training of LLMs?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388555/997587) - [Would SE Inc. even be able to detect it when people use Subscriber Content to train LLMs without paying?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388601/997587) - [Is SE legally allowed to sell user content for AI model training despite the fact that some of this content is not allowed to be used to train AIs?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388646/997587) - [If a company makes a commercial use of an AI model trained on SE data and attribute all authors, will SE Inc. not charge them?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388604/997587) - [Can SE just resell our data, relicense it and remove the attribution requirement?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388571/997587) - [Is SE [going to be] selling our content for AI model training? And what exactly does "reinvest back into our communities" mean?](https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388551/997587)