4 ms·
> if it costs them $10 million to remove my PII that's their problem It is an engineering problem and this is (largely) an engineering forum. Tomorrow solving
by foverzar 3y ago
> if it costs them $10 million to remove my PII that's their problem
It is an engineering problem and this is (largely) an engineering forum. Tomorrow solving this might be a part of your job as well, so idk why are you so dismissive.
- jeroenhd 3y agoIt's a manufactured engineering problem. They created, collected, and processed data before thinking of the ethical and legal problems that may arise. Their lack of innovation to prevent this issue is why they now face a significant challenge in retroactively making their product ethical and legal. I completely agree with the parent post, it's not my problem that their product was badly designed. If it takes them 10 million dollars to comply with the various data protection laws around the world, that's none of my concern.
- bcrosby95 3y agoWhat engineering problem isn't "manufactured"? Hell, pii itself is manufactured. God damn houses! Builders never stopped to think someone I don't want to talk to could use my address to find me!
- jeroenhd 3y agoThe house was manufactured according to the building and fire safety codes. You can't build a house and then go "well it's too expensive to comply with fire safety/building code and I only just found out about the concept of zoning laws, I'll try to do better next time". People will get mad and you may very well be forced to tear it back down or stop inhabiting it. OpenAI either chose to have this problem or they're completely incompetent, and I doubt the latter is true. They knew damn well that they will encounter PII in their dataset and they knew damn well that there are laws surrounding that. The GDPR was well under way and in the news when their company formed, let alone when their various GPT models were finished, and 20 years before that there were already European privacy laws regarding data collection and other PII use. They chose to train a huge model without implementing a safeguard against PII and now they'll have to live with the consequences. One of those consequences may be "their investment money is going down the drain in fines" or maybe even "their product is illegal across the EU and the EU still wants to see the money from those fines".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 3y agoYeah, but fire is a manufactured problem. Animals live quite well without fire. Build out of mud and don't use thatch.
- stonogo 3y agoWeird to see a Hacker News thread devolve into lightning denialism just to protect a private company's bad engineering.
- renewiltord 3y agoYou clearly understand nothing about building code. If you used mud to-spec, it is not flammable!
- goatlover 3y agoSo if you were an engineer at OpenAI, how would you propose going about deleting data from a trained LLM that's already in use?
- cuu508 3y agoRemove it from the training set and train again. Don't do it per data erasure request, batch them and run it, say, every 30 days.
- a2128 3y agoLarge language models take months to train on thousands of GPUs (LLaMA trained for around 5 months on 2048 A100-80GB, consuming around 2,638 MWh), it's nowhere near viable to re-train them from scratch to remove some training data
- blibble 3y agothat's fine if their business model isn't compatible with the law then they can wind up the company and return the remaining capital to their investors it's no different to companies complaining that the cost of legal disposal of toxic waste renders their business nonviable
- foverzar 3y agoThis is a boring attitude. Every problem is a manufactured problem, the only core problems we have are food and reproduction. "Ethical and legal problems" are actually largely consumer's perspective problems and have little to do with actual ethics or legal precedents. Welcome to the real world, where people leave their personal data all around the internet without any concern. This IS an engineering problem, just like implementing "the right to be forgotten" in a search engine is - it would likely only concern notable people anyway. > it's not my problem that their product was badly designed. If it takes them 10 million dollars to comply with the various data protection laws around the world, that's none of my concern. Well sure, from the consumerist standpoint, that is definitely not your problem. But if a consumer is all you amount to, then why even bother posting here? Karen rhetorics is lazy, tiresome for everyone around and brings nothing interesting to the discussion.