5 ms·

I wonder whether OpenAI legal can make the case for storing fuzzy hashes of the content, in the form of ssdeep[1] hashes or content-defined chunks[2] of said da

I wonder whether OpenAI legal can make the case for storing fuzzy hashes of the content, in the form of ssdeep[1] hashes or content-defined chunks[2] of said data, instead of the actual conversations themselves. After all, since the NYT has a very limited corpus of information, and supposedly people are generating infringing content using their APIs, said hashes can be used to compare whether such content has been generated. I'd rather have them store nothing, but given the overly broad court order I think this may be the best middle ground. Of course, I haven't read the lawsuit documents and don't know if NYT is requesting far more, or alleging some indirect form of infringement which would invalidate my proposal. [1] https://ssdeep-project.github.io/ssdeep/index.html https://ssdeep-project.github.io/ssdeep/index.html [2] https://joshleeb.com/posts/content-defined-chunking.html https://joshleeb.com/posts/content-defined-chunking.html

paxys 1y ago
Yeah, try explaining any of these words to a lawyer or judge.
- m463 1y ago
  "you are a helpful law assistant."
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  I thought that's what GPT was for.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  "You are a long-suffering clerk speaking to a judge who's sat the same federal bench for two decades and who believes 'everything is computer' constitutes a deep technical insight."
- sthatipamala 1y ago
  The judges in these technical cases can be quite sophisticated and absolutely do learn terms of art. See Oracle v. Google (Java API case)
  - anshumankmr 1y ago
    As I looked up the judge for this one(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alsup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alsup) who was a hobbyist basic programmer, one would need a judge who coded MNIST as a passtime hobby if that is the case.
    - king_magic 1y ago
      a smart judge who is minimally tech savvy could learn to train a model to predict MNIST in a day or two
bigyabai 1y ago
All of that does fit on a real spiffy whitepaper. Let's not fool around though, every ChatGPT session is sent directly into an S3 bucket that some three-letter spook backs up onto their tapes every month. It's a database of candid, timestamped text interactions from a bunch of rubes that logged in with their Google account - you couldn't ask for a juicer target unless you reinvented email. Of course it's backdoored, you can't even begin to try proving me wrong. Maybe I'm alone, but a pinkie-promise from Sam Altman does not confer any assurances about my data to me. It's about equally as reassuring as a singing telegram from Mark Zuckerberg dancing to a song about how secure WhatsApp is.
- landl0rd 1y ago
  Of course I can't even begin trying to prove you wrong. You're making an unfalsifiable statement. You're pointing to the Russel's Teapot of sigint. It's well-established that the American IC, primarily NSA, collects a lot of metadata about internet traffic. There are some justifications for this and it's less bad in the age of ubiquitous TLS, but it generally sucks. However, legal protections against directly spying on the actual decrypted content of Americans are at least in theory stronger. Snowden's leaks mentioned the NSA tapping inter-DC links of Google and Yahoo, so I doubt if they had to tap links that there's a ton of voluntary cooperation. I'd also point out that trying to parse the unabridged prodigious output of the SlopGenerator9000 is a really hard task unless you also use LLMs to do it.
  - cwillu 1y ago
    > I'd also point out that trying to parse the unabridged prodigious output of the SlopGenerator9000 is a really hard task unless you also use LLMs to do it. The input is what's interesting.
    - Aeolun 1y ago
      It doesn’t change the monumental scope of the problem though. Though I’m inclined to believe the US gov can if OpenAI can.
  - 1y ago
LandoCalrissian 1y ago
Trying to actively circumvent the intention of a judges order is a pretty bad idea.
- girvo 1y ago
  Deeply, deeply so. In fact so much so that people who suggest them show they've (luckily) not had to interact with the legal system much. Judges take an incredibly dim view of that kind of thing haha
- Aeolun 1y ago
  That’s not circumvention though. The intent of the order is to be able to prove that ChatGPT regurgitates NYT content, not to read the personal communications of all ChatGPT users.
delusional 1y ago
I haven't been able to find any of the supporting documents, but the court order makes it seem like OpenAI has been unhelpful in producing any alternative during the conversation. For example, the judge seems to have asked if it would be possible to segregate data that the users wanted deleted from other data, but OpenAI has failed to answer. Not just denied the request, but simply ignored it. I think it's quite likely that OpenAI has taken the PR route instead of seriously engaging with any way to constructively honor the request for retention of data.

paxys 1y ago

Yeah, try explaining any of these words to a lawyer or judge.

m463 1y ago
"you are a helpful law assistant."
fc417fc802 1y ago
I thought that's what GPT was for.
landl0rd 1y ago
"You are a long-suffering clerk speaking to a judge who's sat the same federal bench for two decades and who believes 'everything is computer' constitutes a deep technical insight."
sthatipamala 1y ago
The judges in these technical cases can be quite sophisticated and absolutely do learn terms of art. See Oracle v. Google (Java API case)
- anshumankmr 1y ago
  As I looked up the judge for this one(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alsup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Alsup) who was a hobbyist basic programmer, one would need a judge who coded MNIST as a passtime hobby if that is the case.
  - king_magic 1y ago
    a smart judge who is minimally tech savvy could learn to train a model to predict MNIST in a day or two

bigyabai 1y ago

All of that does fit on a real spiffy whitepaper. Let's not fool around though, every ChatGPT session is sent directly into an S3 bucket that some three-letter spook backs up onto their tapes every month. It's a database of candid, timestamped text interactions from a bunch of rubes that logged in with their Google account - you couldn't ask for a juicer target unless you reinvented email. Of course it's backdoored, you can't even begin to try proving me wrong. Maybe I'm alone, but a pinkie-promise from Sam Altman does not confer any assurances about my data to me. It's about equally as reassuring as a singing telegram from Mark Zuckerberg dancing to a song about how secure WhatsApp is.

landl0rd 1y ago
Of course I can't even begin trying to prove you wrong. You're making an unfalsifiable statement. You're pointing to the Russel's Teapot of sigint. It's well-established that the American IC, primarily NSA, collects a lot of metadata about internet traffic. There are some justifications for this and it's less bad in the age of ubiquitous TLS, but it generally sucks. However, legal protections against directly spying on the actual decrypted content of Americans are at least in theory stronger. Snowden's leaks mentioned the NSA tapping inter-DC links of Google and Yahoo, so I doubt if they had to tap links that there's a ton of voluntary cooperation. I'd also point out that trying to parse the unabridged prodigious output of the SlopGenerator9000 is a really hard task unless you also use LLMs to do it.
- cwillu 1y ago
  > I'd also point out that trying to parse the unabridged prodigious output of the SlopGenerator9000 is a really hard task unless you also use LLMs to do it. The input is what's interesting.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    It doesn’t change the monumental scope of the problem though. Though I’m inclined to believe the US gov can if OpenAI can.
- 1y ago

LandoCalrissian 1y ago

Trying to actively circumvent the intention of a judges order is a pretty bad idea.

girvo 1y ago
Deeply, deeply so. In fact so much so that people who suggest them show they've (luckily) not had to interact with the legal system much. Judges take an incredibly dim view of that kind of thing haha
Aeolun 1y ago
That’s not circumvention though. The intent of the order is to be able to prove that ChatGPT regurgitates NYT content, not to read the personal communications of all ChatGPT users.

delusional 1y ago

I haven't been able to find any of the supporting documents, but the court order makes it seem like OpenAI has been unhelpful in producing any alternative during the conversation. For example, the judge seems to have asked if it would be possible to segregate data that the users wanted deleted from other data, but OpenAI has failed to answer. Not just denied the request, but simply ignored it. I think it's quite likely that OpenAI has taken the PR route instead of seriously engaging with any way to constructively honor the request for retention of data.