There is an excessive number ChatGPT screenshots littering social media right now, and not nearly enough critical thinking about feeding data into this novel new chatbot. An anecdotal survey of my timeline includes people asking ChatGPT to solve math equations, write emails for them, create short story prompts, identify bugs in code, or even generate code for them. Behold, the power of AI!
ChatGPT is created by OpenAI, which despite the name is not any form of “open” organization, but rather a startup which has been considering funding at a pretty monstrous valuation. In essence, ChatGPT is an AI tool trained on a large corpus of public and proprietary information, packaged up as a kooky chatbot.
Fine. Setting aside my own annoyance with ML developers co-opting data from “the commons”, fine.
The zeal with which most people are dumping information into ChatGPT really concerns me however. I have seen a number of people feeding their own source code into ChatGPT to ask it to find bugs or security holes. It would be foolish to assume that the inputs into ChatGPT are not also used to train ChatGPT, or at least the next generations of the model.
I am certainly no lawyer, but the two primary problems here are:
- Most developers are not authorized to disclose proprietary information of their employers. Pasting source code into any browser window creates a liability, but a browser window with ChatGPT increases the likelihood that the source code disclosed will be reproduced in the future, for some other user of the system. Uh oh!
- Can the code generated by ChatGPT could be considered yours? Who actually owns the copyright to machine generated code, or machine generated anything for that matter? Do the architects of the system own it, or the users supplying the inputs? This particular wrinkle isn’t unique to ChatGPT, but any ML tool generating data which occupies a space adjacent to human created, and copyrighted works.
My concerns with what OpenAI is doing with this data is not tin-foil paranoia. Adobe is catching grief for opting Lightroom users in to train their AI with those users copyrighted or proprietary works.
I am sure the legal system will catch up to the rapid evolution of these ML robber barons, but until then I think we should all be very weary of feeding intellectual property to these systems.