@James

Hello everyone, Is it allowed to use OpenAI API outputs to create a silver code dataset or benchmark for a specific Python library? I am working on a project idea related to library-specific code generation. The concrete case is a specific Python library used in a technical/scientific domain. The goal would be to improve and evaluate how well code-generation models can use this library correctly. I am trying to understand the legal / Terms of Service boundary around using OpenAI API outputs in two different scenarios: Scenario 1: Silver dataset for fine-tuning an OSS model Use the OpenAI API to generate programming tasks, reference solutions, and verification tests for the specific Python library. Then human-review, filter, and validate the generated examples. Then use this silver dataset to fine-tune an open-source code model, with the goal of improving its performance on this specific library. My question: would this violate OpenAI’s terms because the API outputs are being used to train/fine-tune another coding model, even if the scope is narrow and library-specific? Scenario 2: Benchmark only, not training Use the OpenAI API to generate programming tasks, reference solutions, and verification tests. Human-review and validate them. Then use the resulting dataset only as an evaluation benchmark to compare different models. The benchmark would not be used to fine-tune or train any model. My question: is this generally considered allowed under OpenAI’s terms, assuming the benchmark is properly reviewed and documented as AI-assisted? I understand that Reddit is not legal advice, and I would still contact OpenAI or legal counsel for a definitive answer. However, I thought new ideas could come up from people who have already faced similar situations in practice. submitted by /u/ororo88 [link] [Kommentare]

I don’t know if this is the right sub-reddit to ask this type of question. I am quite ignorant about hardcore technical stuff. I want to say that I love the idea of an agnostic approach to AI and being able to understand and decide which model is best suited for a specific task. As well as the ability to have citations, being able to have it look through health research and stuff for queries regarding health, etc. Now I do not know if this is just in a general sense people just complaining or something else entirely, but I am seeing a lot of negative stuff on the Perplexity sub-reddit. In terms of like how the quality has gone down, asking how such a company is still even in business. I was just wondering if any of this holds any water or is overly exaggerated submitted by /u/No-Main6695 [link] [Kommentare]

Unpopular opinion: most AI tools don’t actually save time. They just move the work around. You still have to prompt it, check it, edit it, and sometimes redo it. That’s not automation — that’s just a different kind of work. The only ones I’ve seen genuinely cut time are search tools like Perplexity and coding tools like Cursor. Everything else feels like it’s optimized for the demo, not real use. Change my mind submitted by /u/aiprotivity_ [link] [Kommentare]