They appear to be quite oppressive.https://www.lehtoslaw.com

For those using ChatGPT, if anything you post is used in a lawsuit against OpenAI, OpenAI can send you the bill for the court case (attorney fees and such) whether OpenAI wins or loses.

Examples:

Attorney talking about their ToS (same link as post link): https://youtu.be/fOTuIhOWFXU?t=268

https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use 7. Indemnification; Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitations on Liability (a) Indemnity. You will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless us, our affiliates, and our personnel, from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) arising from or relating to your use of the Services, including your Content, products or services you develop or offer in connection with the Services, and your breach of these Terms or violation of applicable law.

  • Spzi@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    Let’s assume I post a screenshot of a ChatGPT session on social media, and OpenAI sues me for the content.

    Don’t they have to prove first that it actually is such a screenshot, and not a fake? It’s even easier with copied text.

    Somehow this rings strangely similar to copyright cases against OpenAI, now with reversed roles. Who owns the authorship, how can we tell?

    • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Let’s assume I post a screenshot of a ChatGPT session on social media, and OpenAI sues me for the content.

      That hypothetical doesn’t have much to do with this indemnification clause. OpenAI wouldn’t be the one filing a lawsuit against you. They are the ones being sued by someone else who saw the screenshot you posted.
      OpenAI would just send you the bill once the case has been settled (because according to the ToS you agreed to defend them from lawsuits related to your use of ChatGPT).

      Don’t they have to prove first that it actually is such a screenshot, and not a fake?

      Yes, and during the whole process the prosecutor will force OpenAI to search through their logs/databases and turn over any evidence related to the case. It probably wouldn’t take long since the screenshot would probably include the prompt from the User and they would just have to search for that.

      Somehow this rings strangely similar to copyright cases against OpenAI, now with reversed roles. Who owns the authorship, how can we tell?

      So far the courts have ruled that AI can’t claim copyright to anything. The “prompter” could claim the copyright but they would also have to alter the output in some way to make it their own (at least as far as AI art is concerned, I assume it would be similar for copyright on text).

  • mikkL@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Tried to read this post twice- what are you telling me to be aware of / stop doing?

    • blankmind@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I am not a lawyer and the implications are larger than this.

      Do not post, share, trade, or otherwise make public any ChatGPT output from your sessions until you fact verify that data to the extent that you’re willing to take legal responsibility for it. In this case, especially causing a lawsuit against OpenAI. Because when that happens, you will foot the bill.

      I am not a lawyer.

      • Sage the Lawyer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Hi, I’m a lawyer. While I work in a different area of law and therefore can’t speak too in depth about this with certainty, if their terms are as enforceable as the linked articles seem to indicate, then yes, this is good advice.

        As always with the law, things may vary by jurisdiction. If you have specific questions, contact a lawyer in your area.

  • ChrislyBear@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Only because they write something in their shitty corporate document doesn’t mean that it holds up later. Sure they can write, that you sold your soul to them, but that doesn’t mean that it is binding at all.

    After all you never signed any contract with them. Not even via Docusign (which wouldn’t even be binding in my country, lol… worthless).

    Yes they can send you a bill, but there’s always room for more toilet paper. Or just send them a fantasy bill back yourself 🤷

  • damnYouSun@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I suppose the argument is, don’t post content which you are not prepared to take responsibility for. Which is the case with any content posted on social media, regardless of who, or what, generated it.

    If I get chatGPT to make inflammatory comments, I’m still responsible for those comments if I choose to post them publicly. I can hardly stand behind the fig leaf of “oh I don’t believe those things only the AI believes those things”. It was still me that chose post the content publicly. Anyway the law does not recognise artificial intelligence systems as having independent agency, so the responsibility is still on the operator.