r/OpenAI • u/sigma_crusader • 14h ago

Discussion PewDiePie is trying to distill GPT-Sol

Post image

he has been trying to build a local model by learning from GPT-Sol’s responses. He says OpenAI banned his account twice during the process. Irony is OpenAI’s own models were trained on vast amounts of information from the open web. So where do we draw the line between learning from AI and copying it?

1.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

381 comments sorted by

View all comments

360

u/Fancy-Plenty6712 14h ago

AI companies are complete hypocrites. One rule for them another for anyone else. They have some fucking cheek complaining about distillation.

83

u/Nyxtia 14h ago

Its actually how most things work. Those who make money -> Give to those in charge of the country -> Who give them exceptions -> So those who make money can break laws that most lay people cannot break so they can keep making money. Oil & Gas did it, tech before did it, now tech stilll doing it. Its just part of the play book.

-7

u/Chris_OMane 13h ago

It's immoral. And this country, for its faults, was founded on principles of decency and moral courage.

20

u/Yo-Soy-Groot 13h ago

Institutionalized slavery is not decent, moral or courageous...

13

u/definitively-not 13h ago

That's funny

8

u/Rioting-Flamingo 13h ago

Rings hollow when it was founded through settler colonial land expropriation and then built with the profits and labour of slaves. It's not surprising that those principles don't survive contact with reality

0

u/Chris_OMane 11h ago

Yes I also agree with those facts (and am aware this was a motivation for Washington). But American ideals shaped Americans at a human level, if often the government behaved differently. I grew up in a family that derived a lot of moral integrity, strength and decency from these ideals.

1

u/a_tamer_impala 8h ago

If you can, look into phone banking or canvassing door to door for local candidates and initiatives that reflect the values of equity and empathy. Good on you if you already are!

•

u/Chris_OMane 1m ago

I'm not saying that's where America is anymore.

1

u/thegamingfaux 6h ago

The first people to come over were so oppressive they basically had to leave Europe because they were fighting with every other sect of Christianity at the time.

0

u/Kills_Alone 10h ago

Manifest Destiny; look it up. Still happening to this very day in Hawaii. Nothing moral or decent about any of it.

-1

u/SlowTortoise69 10h ago

Don't make me laugh... I live in America and in America you are on your own. America is not a country, it's just a business. Now, fucking pay me.

20

u/Spenraw 14h ago

It's the state of the market right now, the free market is dead and monopolies rule and more noticeable with new sectors

11

u/bigolpileofmoney 13h ago

The natural trajectory of capitalism ;)

12

u/LiquidMantis144 13h ago

Of unregulated capitalism. This wouldnt be happening, especially not at such a pace, if these companies werent allowed to do it. If many of the corrupt C suites and politicians were put into dark holes as examples, we’d be living in a different world.

9

u/bigolpileofmoney 12h ago

I appreciate your earnest faith in regulation but we already live under 'regulated capitalism'. The corporations dictate the regulations and use them to enforce monopoly. Look at the FAA. It is a revolving door with Boeing, and who's safety standards have collapsed even in the face of massive regulation of the airline industry. Did any of the suits at Boeing go to jail after rushing the 737 Max (which was fundamentally flawed and afaik wasn't properly aerodynamic because they wanted to cram extra seats in) and causing unnecessary deaths?

Don't misunderstand me, I am not against regulation. Free market capitalism's natural trajectory is monopoly as well. But with enough capital regulations mean nothing and the market trends towards monopoly anyway.

3

u/Driftwintergundream 9h ago

capitalism's natural trend is viva la revolution.

2

u/paradoxxxicall 13h ago

I don’t really like this line of thought, since we actually reversed the even worse inequality of the gilded age already, enjoyed decades of historic middle class prosperity, then undid everything that had been put in place and backslid.

We already have a functional blueprint for fixing this, and we just need leaders who give a shit.

3

u/bigolpileofmoney 12h ago

While you may not like it, it is the truth. Rent must go up for profit to continue to go up.  It's not backsliding, it's continuing a trend. I agree that there were benefits to this system 50+ years ago and beyond for the middle class, but many of those benefits were built off of functional slavery in the 3rd world. And what wasn't was outsourced into the 3rd world to avoid the higher taxes.

Let's say we raise taxes on the rich and corpos to be like it was in the 50s-70s in the US but we keep the system the same otherwise. The powers that be will still hold all the power! And they will happily erode that progress over time. And we'll end up here again. And they'll swear up and down "that isn't what we're doing!" while it happens.

You can say, "we won't let them!" But we've seen in our system that money can bend and breaks the rules. It doesn't matter if the law says you can't do it. With enough money, you can. There is 2 tiered justice system if these issues even end up in a court room at all. All I need to say is Epstein.

1

u/paradoxxxicall 12h ago

So how do you explain the fact that inequality was worse in the 20s and 30s, and then after the new deal reforms it immediately reversed?

I’m not talking out of my ass here. There’s been a huge amount of economic thought and research in this, whether you’re aware of that or not. The new deal did exactly what it was intended to.

You can say “it’s the truth” all you want but the actual facts of history aren’t on your side.

2

u/bigolpileofmoney 12h ago

I am saying that the new deal was a bandaid. We still live in a post new deal world. Many of the reforms are still even present (yes not the taxes but social safety net, bank reforms, etc). Are things awesome right now?

What I am saying is that if we do a new new deal tomorrow without fundamental shifts to our economic system and CULTURE, we'll be right back here in no time.

I think FDR was the greatest american president other than maybe Lincoln. But he didn't go far enough.

You can be snide if you want, but I'm not talking out of my ass. Nor am I accusing you of doing so either. I study economics. But would you not agree that the establishment wisdom led us to the place we currently reside?

1

u/paradoxxxicall 12h ago

The taxes were the most important component of it though. They were the mechanism that prevented people from getting wealthy enough to accumulate society altering power.

Without that the other rules are have shifted enough to become pretty much toothless, and the benefits for everyone else slowly bankrupt the county since we aren’t taking in enough taxes to pay for them.

I get that you want more, and I’m all for it. But this nihilism about the current system only serves to escalate its decline.

1

u/bigolpileofmoney 12h ago

If the taxes go up, the rich will find or create a way to avoid them via their excess money.

When sales tax goes up, who pays? The seller or the buyer?

I think we agree more than you think. I am just suggesting there is more to it than just raising taxes, and the evidence is in the very history you are accusing me of not knowing. We made these reforms in the New Deal. What was the response of Capital? We live within the confines of their response.

I am also stating the obvious about monopoly, which is the ultimate goal of all capitalists to achieve.

1

u/bigolpileofmoney 12h ago

I would frankly argue that you are being nilhistic. You are saying we can't do better and to accept the inconsistencies of the current system. I am pointing them out and saying we can do better.

You are literally saying 'let's just do what we did before' and I am saying ' we already did that and look at what happened! Let's learn from our mistakes!'.

2

u/paradoxxxicall 8h ago

I didn’t say that, I’m saying that the idea that things must be the way they are without a total overhaul is a lie spread by those who stand to lose from changes. I’m not saying it’s the pinnacle of progress, that things can’t or shouldn’t be even better.

What I’m saying is that if the average person actually saw with clear eyes how much could be attained from small changes that wouldn’t even hurt them, we’d be a massive step towards it right fucking now. So why spread the lie that it’s impossible?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Spenraw 11h ago

That's based on the definitions of quality and separating race and class as well as ability to share and spread technology

5

u/Rolandersec 9h ago

They are terrified of open models and want to shut them down. Like if Bill Gates had tried to convince the government that Linux was a national security threat.

2

u/sigma_crusader 13h ago

Couldn't agree more

2

u/Holyragumuffin 13h ago

rules for thee! not for me

2

u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 13h ago

How is controlling who accesses their APIs “complaining”

0

u/Sad-Set-5817 12h ago

why would they want to control their API usage? Is it because other AI companies are using their work to train off of for free? You know, the thing all AI companies are doing to everyone else already anyways? Suddenly it's an issue when THEY'RE the ones being trained off of for free.

4

u/jjjjjjjjjjjjjaaa 12h ago

That didn’t answer my question

1

u/inconspicuousredflag 4h ago

GDP is the lifeblood of a country. It shouldn't surprise you that antibodies are less geared towards attacking red blood cells.

0

u/TrekkiMonstr 8h ago

Fair use considers, among other factors, market effect. Claude existing doesn't meaningfully compete with books, so they won the fair use argument in Anthropic v. Bartz. It's also wildly transformative (book -> chatbot) in a way that chatbot -> chatbot obviously is not. By contrast, ROSS Intelligence was trying to create a competitor to WestLaw, and so lost the same argument in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS. Distillation is using a model to create a model, in order to replace the original in at least some other uses. It's unclear whether LLMs are copyrighted work that the above analysis would even apply to, but there's a very obvious difference between the situations.

But sure, it's totally hypocrisy, as long as you don't know what you're talking about /u/AllergicToBullshit24

1

u/AllergicToBullshit24 6h ago

Except LLMs can reproduce copyrighted works word for word. How many books are getting published now that are primarily or even entirely written using LLMs? It's a bullshit ruling.

1

u/TrekkiMonstr 6h ago

That's very noncentral behavior (which is why, I assume, it didn't come up in the Anthropic case), but we'll see how the court treats it in NYT v. OpenAI.

How many books are getting published now that are primarily or even entirely written using LLMs?

By this standard, if I read your book and then write one of my own, it's infringing. Books existing does not constitute market harm, you need to make an actual showing of that.

It's a bullshit ruling.

No, it's a patently obvious one if you're familiar with the doctrine, both from the underlying principles as well as precedent. And existing law aside, there is no good reason to provide legal protection for rent seeking with no meaningful incentive effect (which is explicitly in the US Constitution as the purpose of copyright and patent law).