Timeline for Our Partnership with OpenAI
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18 at 0:20 | comment | added | alexandroid | "Humans are meant to exploit machines, not the other way round" - I don't understand this. Humans will be the ultimate users of AI-powered search, so how does this even apply? Attribution can be solved separately (if it even needs to be solved in this context). | |
| May 17 at 18:19 | comment | added | sunny moon | When a product is free, you become the product. Happened with GitHub, is happening now with SO, will happen again unless you, programmers, part with that childishly naive trust in corporate-backed "communities". Otherwise you'll just keep working as mechanical turks who train commercial AI for free, and then become obsolete in AI-dominated IT industry you've built with your own hands and brains. | |
| May 16 at 12:05 | comment | added | Lily White | Deleting content does not retract your licensing it in CC BY-SA. Then, feeding it to LLM pretty much violates that also. | |
| May 15 at 9:19 | comment | added | GothAlice | It's exploitative, almost guaranteed to violate the CC BY-SA license, and I've already caught ChatGPT spitting my own open source code back at me, also directly violating the MIT license I publish it all under. Just waiting for the lawsuit; I'd be a member of the injured class. Eagerly awaiting case law. Deletion of your account merely disassociates your content from your name. That also smells like an attribution clause violation. | |
| May 13 at 13:47 | comment | added | VLAZ | @ChrisZeThird GDPR (the "internet law in the EU", if you will) deals with personal data. Your name, your address, your email, etc. Not just anything you've happened to upload ever. GDPR does require for profiles to be removable along with other personal information related to them. In effect, after the account is deleted, it should not be traceable to you. That is perfectly within the scope of GDPR. But it never requires all data to be deleted. If you have any other applicable laws that might influence this, feel free to share them, though. But GDPR is not a magic "erase" button. | |
| May 13 at 13:38 | comment | added | Chris Ze Third | I see a lot of people saying that deleting your account won't result in content deletion but it sounds like it's violating some internet laws in the EU? Which is not a good thing | |
| May 13 at 0:10 | comment | added | Totoro doesn't feed AI anymore | Given that OpenAI gets all the credit for all my past, present and future contributions and I get nothing, I will do this. I will only post answers generated by OpenAI. Two years down the road, it will cannibalize itself. | |
| May 11 at 21:10 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | Personally I don't care about the LLM training (I'm rather pro-AI, honestly) but the way that this change in policy has been handled was definitely very poor. The feeling of exploitation is why I logged out for the last time in Jan 2020 and stopped producing content the previous October. | |
| May 11 at 18:17 | comment | added | endolith | @DanubianSailor We contributed free work to the company because the content is under a CC BY-SA license. It is fine to make money off our content as long as they adhere to the license. This forbids selling the content to OpenAI, though, since they do not provide attribution or release their derivative works under a compatible license. | |
| May 11 at 4:59 | history | edited | Christian Hujer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Explain why I think that the previous license agreement does not cover this.
|
| May 11 at 3:21 | comment | added | Maxim Egorushkin | One way to look at it is that corporations are never your friend. They love talking about building communities and ecosystems, but eventually they need to monetize user-generated content and change licensing to make your content their property. When their policies and promises change overnight 180° all you get "we are sorry you feel that way", "our hopes and prayers" and "that was a deliberate business decision we had to make with a heavy heart". And then they laugh all the way to the bank. | |
| May 10 at 15:19 | comment | added | zcoop98 | @Danubian That was never the point though; from the beginning Stack was the company in charge of keeping the lights on, but contributing here was always about building a library that could benefit others first (as emblazoned in the opening of every site tour), the company second. I believe that hasn't been altered by this partnership, though I completely understand why some feel differently, or are angry regardless. But nothing fundamental has changed about the nature of your "free work"; if anyone was contributing to benefit the company, they were, and are, doing it for the wrong reasons. | |
| May 10 at 7:41 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "I feel violated, cheated upon, betrayed, and exploited." Violated and cheated upon not really but betrayed and exploited yes. Although I kind of expected that at the very least since the company was sold from the initial founders in 2019. | |
| May 10 at 1:03 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<https://policies.stackoverflow.co/company/trademark-guidance/#h1-2de2438a74fa0> <https://stackoverflow.design/brand/copywriting/naming/>].
|
| May 9 at 7:06 | comment | added | Ramhound | @Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI - Your agreement cannot be revoked, you might take a moment, to read the agreement you are trying to unilaterally revoke. Doesn’t change the fact, if you vandalize contributions, the community will just reverse your vandalism. Based on the level of contributions you have made, I assume you know what that agreement actually is, so that advice isn’t necessarily specific to your situation | |
| May 9 at 6:58 | comment | added | Shadur-don't-feed-the-AI | @ramhound I submitted those contributions well before this "AI" LLM bubble was ever a thing. If they decide to retroactively alter the terms of the agreement, they don't get to be upset when I decide to retroactively withdraw my agreement to it. | |
| May 9 at 6:26 | comment | added | VLAZ | "I know of a user whose account has been suspended for 7 days because they started deleting their stuff." for reference, the suspension has no relation to the OpenAI deal. It's standard practice and has been enacted every time an account has tried to mass remove their content. There is monitoring in place for such occasions for many years now. Only the deletion in this case is related to the OpenAI deal. The presentation here may make somebody believe that the suspension is somehow "abnormal" rather than a standard. | |
| May 9 at 6:21 | comment | added | Ramhound | Removing help contributions once they have been submitted is a form of vandalism, if you don’t agree with the license to the contribution you are submitting, simply don’t submit it in the first place. So the user you speak of was suspended for vandalism not editing out the helpful content from their contribution | |
| May 9 at 6:16 | history | edited | Christian Hujer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Emphasize what I believe is the most important statement of my answer.
|
| May 8 at 14:02 | history | edited | Christian Hujer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 422 characters in body
|
| May 8 at 5:26 | history | answered | Christian Hujer | CC BY-SA 4.0 |