>I expect nobody will care. Once someone has decided that a company might "train AI" on private data you've already lost that person's trust. It's not clear to

>I expect nobody will care. Once someone has decided that a company might "train AI" on private data you've already lost that person's trust. It's not clear to me if any company has figured out how they can overcome one of these AI training panics at this point. I think it goes beyond a single company, or rather a single incidence of this panic. You're looking at each time this happens as an independent coin flip instead of a series of dominoes that trigger a reaction in multiple directions. What I mean by that is there's a counterculture sentiment building based off the idea that people have seen this same pattern enough times at this point that they're distrustful of large scale systems by default. It's happening with government institutions, politics, economics, and individual industries like gaming and streaming. To that end the "panic" is not just a reaction to Slack's (perceived) actions, but an expectation that Slack will be yet another domino in that line of companies that have done the same. It's also difficult to prove a negative (that Slack isn't using private data for training purposes even if they say they're not) so the messaging is up against a very solid wall. The result here is that public announcements and messaging related to data are under heavy scrutiny, and the media is incentivized to try and make their reporting go viral (ironically for the ad revenue) at the expense of actual journalistic reporting. I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, or if there even is one, but promoting self hosting seems like an indicator that the default assumption is that data collected will be abused in some way. Honestly based on the last couple of years it's not an unreasonable assumption either.