8 ms·

At this point the letters GPT make more sense than "AI" or "LLM" in many peoples minds

Uehreka 3y ago
Hard disagree. Outside of the brand name ChatGPT, lay members of the general public are way more likely to call these chatbots (like Bard and Bing) “AIs” than “GPTs”. And although GPT could technically refer to any model that uses a Generative Pre-trained Transformer approach (although it probably wouldn’t be an open-and-shut case), the mark “GPT-4” definitely is associated with OpenAI and their product, and you can’t just use it without their permission.
- collaborative 3y ago
  So OpenAI ostensibly owns "GPT4" according to your argument. But does it own "MiniGPT4"? I hope you see the absurdity of this. Let's not discuss the amount of copyright licenses OpenAI has already infringed, too
  - Uehreka 3y ago
    I’ll put it this way: At Brewer’s Art in Baltimore, MD they just released a beer called GPT (Green Peppercorn Tripel)[1]. They’re likely allowed to do that because a reasonable consumer would probably not actually think they had collaborated with OpenAI, because OpenAI does not make beer. OP is releasing a model called “MiniGPT-4”. A reasonable consumer could look at that name and become confused about the origin of the product, thinking it was from OpenAI. This would be understandable, since OpenAI also makes large language models and has a well known one that they’ve been promoting whose brand name is “GPT-4”. If MiniGPT-4 does not meet that consumer’s expectation of quality (which has been built up through using and hearing about GPT-4) it may cause them to think something like “Wow, I guess OpenAI is going downhill”. Trademark cases are generally decided on a “reasonable consumer” basis. So yeah, they can seem a little arbitrary. But it’s important for consumers to be able to distinguish the origin of the goods they are consuming and for creators to be able to benefit from their investment in advertising and product development. [1] https://www.thebrewersart.com/bottles-cans https://www.thebrewersart.com/bottles-cans

Hard disagree. Outside of the brand name ChatGPT, lay members of the general public are way more likely to call these chatbots (like Bard and Bing) “AIs” than “GPTs”. And although GPT could technically refer to any model that uses a Generative Pre-trained Transformer approach (although it probably wouldn’t be an open-and-shut case), the mark “GPT-4” definitely is associated with OpenAI and their product, and you can’t just use it without their permission.

collaborative 3y ago
So OpenAI ostensibly owns "GPT4" according to your argument. But does it own "MiniGPT4"? I hope you see the absurdity of this. Let's not discuss the amount of copyright licenses OpenAI has already infringed, too
- Uehreka 3y ago
  I’ll put it this way: At Brewer’s Art in Baltimore, MD they just released a beer called GPT (Green Peppercorn Tripel)[1]. They’re likely allowed to do that because a reasonable consumer would probably not actually think they had collaborated with OpenAI, because OpenAI does not make beer. OP is releasing a model called “MiniGPT-4”. A reasonable consumer could look at that name and become confused about the origin of the product, thinking it was from OpenAI. This would be understandable, since OpenAI also makes large language models and has a well known one that they’ve been promoting whose brand name is “GPT-4”. If MiniGPT-4 does not meet that consumer’s expectation of quality (which has been built up through using and hearing about GPT-4) it may cause them to think something like “Wow, I guess OpenAI is going downhill”. Trademark cases are generally decided on a “reasonable consumer” basis. So yeah, they can seem a little arbitrary. But it’s important for consumers to be able to distinguish the origin of the goods they are consuming and for creators to be able to benefit from their investment in advertising and product development. [1] https://www.thebrewersart.com/bottles-cans https://www.thebrewersart.com/bottles-cans