> Is it unfair for you to create content/products/etc after you have read and learned from various sources on the internet, potentially depriving them of clicks/income?
Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being. It's a product that is built upon data from other sources.
Being allowed to scrape something does not absolve you of all intellectual property, copyright, moral, etc. issues arising from subsequent use of the scraped data.
Exactly, besides, the question isn’t about legality, it’s about what the law should be, I think. The question isn’t whether it’s legal, the question is whether we need to change the law in response to technology.
> Web scraping is legal, US appeals court reaffirms
First, the case is not closed. [0]
Second, to draw an analogy, you can use scraping in the same way you can use a computer: for legal purposes. That is, you cannot use scraping to violate copyright, just as you cannot use a computer to violate copyright.
The following being my conjecture (IANAL), there is fair use and there is copyright violation, and scraping can be used for either—it does not automatically make you a criminal, but neither is it automatically OK. If what you do is demonstrably fair use presumably you’d be fine; but OpenAI with its products cannot prove fair use in principle (and arguably the use stops being fair already at the point where it compiles works with intent to profit).
It seems the issue with scraping as it pertains to copyright issues isn't the scraping, any more than buying a book to sell off photocopies of it cheaply doesn't indicate that there is a problem with buying books. The issue is the copying, and more importantly, the distribution of those copies.
Fair use of course being the exception.
Now, as for accessing things like credentials that get left in unsecured AWS buckets is the bigger area where courts are less likely to recognize the legality of scraping. Never mind the fact that these people literally published their private data on a globally accessible platforms in a public fashion. I'm not a lawyer but I've seen reports of this leaning both directions in court, and yes, I've seen wget listed as a "hacker tool."
This is what happens when feelings matter more to the legal system than principles.
And before it's brought up, I may as well point out that no, I don't condone the actual USE of obviously private credentials found in an AWS bucket any more than I condone the use of a credit card that one may find on the sidewalk. Both are clearly in the public sphere, unprotected, but for both there is a pretty good expectation that someone put it there by accident, and that it's not YOUR credential to use.
Basically, getting back to the OP, ChatGPT hasn't done anything I've seen that'd constitute copyright infringement -- fair use seems to apply fairly well. As for the ad-supported model, adblockers did this all first. If you wanted to stop anything accessing your site that didn't view ads, there are solutions out there to achieve this. Don't be surprised when it chases away a good amount of traffic though -- you're likely serving up ad-supported content because it's not content you expected your users to pay for to begin with.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the people on these forums were not ignorant of both philosophy or the legal system before diving into incoherent conversations about both at the same time where the main thrust is the emotions they have about these tools?
It's scraping both when humans do it and when the ChatGPT team do it, but that wasn't the point the parent made. He made a moral/philosophical point which is what i responded to.
Check me on this because I'm not a software person:
When a person "scrapes" a website by clicking through the link it registers as a hit on the website and, without filters being turned on, triggers the various ad impressions and other cookies. Also if the person needs that information again odds are they'll click on a bookmark or a search link and repeat the impression process all over again.
When an AI scrapes the web it does so once, and possibly in a manner designed to not trigger any ads or cookies (unless that's the purpose of the scrape). It's more equivalent to a person hitting up the website through an archive link.
...it is? I didn't see that question raised in OP's text at all. What do legacy human legalities have to do with how AI will behave?
> Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being.
Is this important? What is so special about human learning that it puts it in a morally distinct category from the learning that our successors will do?
It sounds like OP is concerned with the ad-driven model of income on the internet, and whether it requires breaking in order for AI to both thrive and be fair.
Well yes, it's the whole crux of the matter. Laws govern human behaviour. As of 2023, only living beings have agency. If I shoot someone with a gun, the criminal is me and not the gun. Being a deterministic piece of silicon, a computer is perfectly equivalent. Sure, it is important to start a discussion of potential nonhuman sentience in the future, but these AI models are not unlike any previous software in legal issues. It's bizarre to me how many people are missing this.
> these AI models are not unlike any previous software in legal issues
Agreed. However, the previous 'legal issues' related to software and the emergence of the internet are also difficult to take seriously when considered on anything but extremely short time scales.
Every time we swirl around this topic, we arrive at the same stumbles which the legacy legal system refuses to address:
* If something happening on the internet is illegal, _where_ is it illegal? Different jurisdictions recognize different jurisdictional notions - they can't even agree on whose laws apply where. If you declare something to be illegal in your house, does that give it the force of law on the internet? Of course not. Yet, the internet doesn't recognize the US state any more than it does your household. It seamlessly routes around the "laws" of both.
* The "laws" that the internet is bound to follow are the fundamental forces of physics. There is no - and can be no - formal in-band way for software to be bound to the laws of men, because signals do not obey borders. The only way to enforce these "laws" are out-of-band violence.
* States continuously, and without exception, find themselves at a disadvantage when they make the futile effort to stem the evolution of the internet. For example, only 30 years ago (a tiny spec in evolutionary time scales), the US state gave non-trivial consideration to banning HTTPS.
I understand that people sometimes follow laws. But they also often don't. The internet has already formed robust immunity against human laws.
Whatever human laws are, they are not the crux of anything related to evolution of software. They are already routinely cast aside when necessary, and are very clearly headed for total irrelevance.
> Your comment comes off as "hire a person because you get along with them, don't worry if they can't write a function that accomplishes a simple task".
No. He is simply saying the current interview only focuses on LC above all else. And should focus on soft skills as well among other things. You took his argument and flipped it 180 and went to the other extreme end. It's false dichotomy.
This summer is going to be brutal for non-revenue generating startups (which is most of them). Assuming their last raise was last summer, they usually only have 18 months of runway before they run out of money. I don't think any of them can raise and even if they can, their valuation will take a significant hit.
I'm always surprised how often people naively talk about "runway" when looking at the health of a startup (or any company).
These arguments always presuppose that the reason companies exist is to keep people employed, and thus 'runway' assumes they can keep doing that is for N years.
But runway is a more or less meaningless piece of information unless you're looking at just a few months and have to close shop soon.
Whether a startup or a publicly traded company, you only invest because you think that runway most certainly ends in a massive reward for you. The claim that "hey we can keep existing for N months!" is not interesting to investors. Even if a startup has 10 years of cash on hand, if they aren't showing the potential for rapid growth, especially when investors are less interested in risk, they're still going to die.
> I think it's because in most companies, VPs are above director.
Every now and again someone whose spent a career exclusively in finance gets bitten by this when transitioning into the business world. A friend once told me a story about a deal with Amazon nearly getting tanked when I coworker chewed out an Amazon VP, saying they wanted to "talk to someone who could make decisions". Took a lot of massaging to salvage that deal.
Enjoyable to imagine this. The ex finance people I work with are quite toxic towards those lower on hierarchy. Cool to hear about someone being bitten by it for once.
I think the bubble is bursting with big tech employees that think they have tenure once they reach a certain level. Big tech isn't some anomaly where layoffs don't happen. It's just that their growth has been uninterrupted for a decade.
No kidding; in one of the most sought after jobs at one of the most recognized companies and get laid off after 16 years?
The blogging on this like it’s new is crazy. I’m mean the automated email is bad, but hey, that’s the automated brave new world our profession has built.
An automated email is unacceptable in any context there, even if they had only been there for a month. An automated email is a dishonest deflection from executives having to face the people their decision making affects.
I don't know an honest owner that wouldn't pull even their worst worker aside and tell them why they're fired at a minimum. I've seen CNC shops where the owner finds new jobs for the people they had to lay off.
The interesting aspect is the tech folks being laid off right now with automated email, could just as easily have developed the automated tools that automated the email. You have to wonder how many really spent much time outraged to the misfortune of those automated out of jobs by the software they develop (cashiers, accountants, entry clerks..)
I am not saying we should not write software, but don't go crying when the realities of capitalism come for your cushy privileged tech job too.
Tech is interesting in that it’s one profession that’s trying to automate itself out of a job.
I think automated emails for layoffs are par for the course; we don’t complain about tools like AWS that have automated whole swaths of stuff we used to have to do and manage ourselves…
So this is a newsfeed? I think Hacker News has been doing a good job without AI. You simply need a community. I am not sure turning Facebook's news feed feature into a product is really that innovative. How many reputable news sources are there to supply their feed?
I think employees treat startups more and more like a jumping pad to get to their ultimate goal of work for Fang. There's no point staying at startups when working at a big tech will yield more money in the long term. I don't blame them though. Look at how startups are run nowadays, all the potential upside has been sucked dry by VCs.
That’s true for some people but not everybody. I like little companies and am willing to take less salary for the enjoyment of building the product from the beginning, knowing every single person you work with, and playing different roles in the team.
I have worked for mega-companies via acqui-hire and I feel like my preference is based in solid experience. I’ve never hired into a company with more than 30 employees in my 30+ years as a developer and probably never will. My current gig is now grown well into the size range where I frequently am reminded why I don’t like bigger companies :(
I used to 100% agree with this, but now I realize that smaller companies have different issues that can make the experience as bad as larger ones, and you gotta learn to compartmentalize the same way.
In the end this is just a job, and we should focus on what's best for ourselves. This is possible and necessary with both large and small employers.
Big companies build new things all the time. And you can easily join a startup which is several years old and has massive tech debt that you are stuck cleaning up. So I don’t think wanting to build new stuff from the ground up necessarily means a startup is best.
Knowing everyone you work with is certainly nice. At big companies you usually work as part of a team of, say, 8-12. And depending on your role and level you might rarely interact with others. At a startup you might have to talk to customers or other partner companies. So I wouldn’t even say it’s universally better in that way.
I do think a big benefit of startups is it’s much easier to get a sense of ownership for what you are doing which generally leads to more job satisfaction. Feeling like a mere cog can be demoralizing.
> So I don’t think wanting to build new stuff from the ground up necessarily means a startup is best.
This is true, but why the focus on building new things? Improving and utilizing existing code bases is where most of the value from a software developer can be gained.
I work at a startup and I make enough that my fiance could quit his shitty job and pursue whatever he wants. Our bills are taken care of, and we both have the freedom to do whatever makes us happy.
For me, I take joy from my work. I get to build something new and cool, and I work with a bunch of fun people.
We have enough money, and sometimes enough is enough. I could earn much more at another company, but why? What would I do with the excess money? Buy more shit I won't use? I earn enough money to support my family and I get it from a job I find personally satisfying. More money won't make me any happier, and will just cause more problems. No thanks.
Trying to maximize my salary at all costs just so "number go up" seems incredibly unhealthy and shortsighted. I'd rather be happy and fulfilled.
>Trying to maximize my salary at all costs just so "number go up" seems incredibly unhealthy and shortsighted. I'd rather be happy and fulfilled.
Sounds like you have an exit plan already worked out? You sound like you have a good retirement saved up or something else working to keep you free of worry.
For the majority of ppl working in this world, they don't have any options which is also accompanied by debt, and the future is always uncertain unless progress is upwards, and most of the time there is a ceiling to potential... There's often no healthy choices for people who didn't have the ability to save up.
My reason for wanting more money is as insurance. Who knows if the future will be as favourable to our industry. Perhaps software will go into a giant slump and salaries will plummet closer to the median. Or perhaps I’ll have personal medical issues that make it difficult to continue working. Or there could be unforeseen personal expenses (kids, family emergency, I or my partner wants to quit working or change careers). Or any other things that I can’t even imagine. The “unknown unknowns” as they say.
So I make around 3x what I actually need to but save the rest. I expect to have enough to “retire” in a few years and then I’ll be able to pick jobs purely based on interest and fun and not pay. For me that’s worthwhile.
Same here. Due to demographic changes, I am predicting services and products I need in old age will be increasing in price at much quicker rates than in the past.
For me, personally, my goal is not just to maximize lifetime income. It's much more important to me to have a workplace with good collaborators and meaningful work where I feel like I am contributing something unique and valuable. I have tried to follow that throughout my career (not that I haven't ended up in some bad workplaces from time to time!) and overall I have no complaints with where I am financially. If you told me you would double my salary to work for Amazon I would say no without hesitation.
This is pretty overblown, I think. I have with intention avoided working for very large companies for most of my career and have a nice house in a major urban area. I save plenty of money and am reasonably likely to retire (defined as "do work I want to, when I want to, for play money etc.") before I'm 55.
If $200K/year at senior/principal isn't "sustainable"--well, move out of the SFBA, I guess.
Not everyone has the flexibility to move wherever they want. I have family obligations in SFBA so I’m kind of stuck. Not that it’s super bad but I dream of saving 2x as much by moving somewhere cheaper.
That's the thing, though. Everyone knows equity value has decreased and salaries have generally increased to reflect it. Within some error bars, $200K is a pretty representative one amongst folks I know who are working for startups in a senior/principal role.
There was much more of a delta when I started doing this ~10 years ago, but even then few people were in a hard spot (again, SFBA types maybe excluded, get another two roommates I guess).
I worked 15+ years in small companies (not necessarily startups) and always made above median salary for the age. Certainly not having as lavish a lifestyle as I could if money were my first priority in life, but sustainability has never been an issue at all.
This is in my opinion the biggest luxury of working in tech over a lot of other occupations, being able to fairly comfortably value other things over salary and not having to take whatever job that pays a little more.
I think hardly anyone in any job is fully maximizing their income. I’ve heard friends say the same thing as you about their $20/hr jobs. Like they could switch and get $25 but they are comfortable and able to live on it so why bother.
Yeah, that's something I noticed as well. Smaller companies have become a mere rite of passage. I now see a lot of young candidates intending to only stay one or two years on a small startup to get experience before quitting, some of them confiding that right after signing the contract. And older developers historically already prefer jumping ship rather than negotiating salaries or facing situations they can't win.
I just checked the trade-in value for 16inch M1 Pro 10 core CPU 16 core GPU with 32GB on the Apple website. It's only worth $700USD. I would have thought they would pay more for a 1 year old laptop. I am not looking to upgrade, but am quite surprised by how low the trade-in value is.
Because it's false equivalence? ChatGPT isn't a human being. It's a product that is built upon data from other sources.
The question is if this data is legal to scrape, which it is: Web scraping is legal, US appeals court reaffirms [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31075396].
As long as the content is not copyrighted and it's not regurgitating the exact same content, then it should be okay.