zlacker

>>andsoi+(OP)
TheInformation: Dozens of Staffers Quit OpenAI After Sutskever Says Altman Won’t Return

>Dozens of OpenAI staffers internally announced they were quitting the company Sunday night, said a person with knowledge of the situation, after board director and chief scientist Ilya Sutskever told employees that fired CEO Sam Altman would not return.

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/dozens-of-staffers-q...

>>mfigui+Xd
Tip for builders: you can use the GPT APIs on Microsoft Azure. Managed reliably, nobody's quitting, no drama. Same APIs, just with better controls, global availability, and a very stable, reliable, and trustworthy provider. (disclosure: I work at Azure, but this is just my own observation).

>>intell+0g
You want me to trust M$ in all this? Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Fellow nerds, you really need to go into work on Monday and have a hard chat with your C levels and legal (Because IANAL). The question is: Who owns the output of LLM/AI/ML tooling?

I will give you a hint, it's not you.

Do you need to copyright what a CS agent says, no, you want them on script as much as possible. An LLM parroting your training data is a good thing (assuming a human wrote it). Do you want an LLM writing code, or copy for your product, or a song for your next corporate sing along (Where did you go old IBM)? No you dont, because it's likely going straight to the public domain. Depending on what your doing with the tool and how your using it, it might not matter that this is the case (its an internal thing) but M$, or openAI, or whoever your vendor is, having a copy that they are free to use might be very bad...

>>zer00e+Pk
Have I just been transported to Slashdot in 2003?

I'm not sure you appreciate how enterprise licence agreements work. Every detail of who owns what will have been spelled out, along with the copyright indemnities for the output.