12 ms·
If you have a Claude account, they're going to train on your data moving forward
- macintux 1y agoDupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062683
- diggan 1y agoAt least this submission has the original text Anthropic sent out to people :) But yeah, Perplexity gives a better summary for outsiders I guess.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- AlecSchueler 1y agoAm I the only one that assumed everything was already being used for training?
- lemonberry 1y agoYou are not.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 1y agoI mean, I am sure there are individuals, who still believe in the basic value of the word within the framework of our civilization, but, having seen those words not just twisted beyond recognition to fit a specific idea, but simply ignored when they were no longer convenient, it would be a surprise now that a cynical stance is not more common. The question is: how does that affect their choices. How much ends up being gated what previously would have ended up in the open? Me: I am using a local variant ( and attempting to build something I think I can control better ).
- hexage1814 1y agoThis. It's the same innocence of people who believe when you delete a document on Google/META/Apple/Microsoft servers, it "really" gets deleted. Google most likely has a backup of every piece of information indexed by them in the last 20 years or so. It would cause envy to the Internet Archive.
- giancarlostoro 1y agoWith the privacy laws out there, I do genuinely think they eventually get purged even from backups. I remember there being a really cool YouTube video shared here on HN that google no longer has publicly, it was about the process of an email and all the behind the scenes things, like physical security into a data center, to their patented hard drive shredders they use once the hard drives are to be tossed. I wish Google had kept that video public and online, it was a great watch. I know once you delete something on Discord its poof, and that's the end of that. I've reported things that if anyone at Discord could access a copy of they would have called police. There's a lot of awful trolls on chat platforms that post awful things.
- diggan 1y ago> I know once you delete something on Discord its poof, and that's the end of that. I've reported things that if anyone at Discord could access a copy of they would have called police. There's a lot of awful trolls on chat platforms that post awful things. That's not what Discord themselves say, is that coming from Discord, the police or someone else? > Once you delete content, it will no longer be available to other users (though it may take some time to clear cached uploads). Deleted content will also be deleted from Discord’s systems, but we may retain content longer if we have a legal obligation to preserve it as described below. Public posts may also be retained for 180 days to two years for use by Discord as described in our Privacy Policy (for example, to help us train models that proactively detect content that violates our policies). - https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/5431812448791-How-long-Discord-keeps-your-information https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/5431812448791-... Seems to be something that decides if the content should be deleted faster, or kept for between 180 days - 2 years. So even for Discord, "once you delete something on Discord its poof" isn't 100% accurate.
- simonw 1y agoThe hardest problem in computer science in 2025 is convincing people that you aren't loading every piece of their personal data into a machine learning training run. The cynic in me wonders if part of Anthropic's decision process here was that, since nobody believes you when you say you're not using their data for training, you may as well do it anyway! Giving people an opt-out might even increase trust, since people can now at least see an option that they control.
- behnamoh 1y ago> The cynic in me wonders if part of Anthropic's decision process here was that, since nobody believes you when you say you're not using their data for training, you may as well do it anyway! This is why I love-hate Anthro, the same way I love-hate Apple. The reason is simple: Great product, shitty MBA-fueled managerial decisions.
- layer8 1y agoYou wouldn’t have needed to assume if you had read their previous policy.
- demarq 1y agoSame, I thought the free accounts were always trained on. Which in my opinion is reasonable since you could delete the data you didn’t want to keep on the service. But including paid accounts and doing 5 year retention however is confounding.
- Aurornis 1y agoI don't understand this mindset. Why would you assume anything? It took me a couple minutes at most to check when I first started using Claude. I check when I start using any new service. The cynical assumption that everything's being shared leads to shrugging it off and making no attempt to look for settings. It only takes a moment to go into settings -> privacy and look.
- efficax 1y agoA silicon valley startup would never say one thing and then do another!
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoHuh, they’re not assuming anything is “being shared”. They’re assuming that Anthropic that is already receiving and storing your data, is also training their models on that data. How are you supposed to disprove that as a user? Also, the whole point is that companies cannot be trusted to follow the settings.
- simonw 1y agoWhy can't companies be trusted to follow the settings? If they add those settings why would you expect they wouldn't respect them? Do you think they're purely cosmetic features that don't actually do anything?
- fcarraldo 1y agoBecause they can’t be? https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/google-hit-with-314-million-us-verdict-cellular-data-class-action-2025-07-01/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jmledvr3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2jmledvr3o
- simonw 1y agoThere is an enormous gap between the behavior covered in those two cases and training machine learning models on user data that a company has specifically said it will not use for training.
- racl101 1y agoNope. I always assumed they were and acted accordingly.
- stevenhuang 1y ago... and your assumptions were wrong until now. Not sure that's much of a dunk as you think it seems
- hkon 1y agoWith the amount of times Claude is visiting my websites I'd say they are very desperate for data.
- gooob 1y agoand now the LLM gets to observe itself, heh heh heh
- SirFatty 1y ago"going forward" ;-)
- homarp 1y agosee other discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45062683
- ratg13 1y agoI can understand training AIs on books, and even internet forums, but I can't help but think that training an AI on lots of dumb questions with probably an excessive amount of grammar and spelling errors will somehow make it smarter.
- dahsameer 1y ago> and even internet forums i would consider internet forums also includes a lot of dumb questions
- nrclark 1y agoDepends on how you’re using the data. There’s a pretty strong correctness signal in the user behavior. Did they rephrase the question? Probably the first answer was wrong. Did the session end? Good chance the answer was acceptable. Did they ask follow-ups? What kind? Etc.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago> Did the session end? Good chance the answer was acceptable. Or that the user just ragequit
- vb-8448 1y agoI'm used to doing the same task 4 or 5 times (different sessions, similar prompts), and most of the time the result is useless or completely wrong. Sometimes I go back and pick the first result, other time none of them, other time a mix of them. I'm wondering how can they extract value from this.
- javier_e06 1y agoI use AI to solve problems, not to check the weather or deciding what to wear. As such it makes sense for AI to remember when it hits the nail on the head.
- leetbulb 1y agoAgreed. Typically I would be against something like this, but in this case, have it.
- AlexandrB 1y agoHow do you feel about this data being used to target advertising at you in the inevitable rush to monetize these AI products?
- christophilus 1y agoI feel like that’s annoying, but it’s a drop in the bucket vs the current firehose of ads, and there’s a slim shot these ads might actually be interesting or relevant to me. Anyway, I’ll block them like I do everything.
- ath3nd 1y agoOh, sweet summer child, your SOLUTIONS will be trained on and will be given to others without your permission and knowledge. But now that you bring up ads, I guarantee you that those will somehow be incorporated in Claude soon.
- leetbulb 1y agoI dislike ads because they generally aren't relevant -- the chance that they add value to my life is very slim -- and we're bombarded with them. Ads will soon become a thing of the past: I imagine AI being able to create full fledged products based on our needs / wants / desires tailored to your personal requirements and constraints. Of course, this is dependent on how much power we're able to pump in to capable AI systems, but as the industry migrates, I don't believe that will be a problem. Imagine how much power is currently wasted on useless legacy data mining and machine learning by the ocean of SaaS companies that promise to boost conversion rates from single digits to single digits for the countless amount of products that only perpetuate the destruction of this world.
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoCriminal, evil thieves.
- internet2000 1y agoI’m fine with that.
- dudefeliciano 1y agoyou are fine with paying, 20, 90 or 200 euros a month AND having your data mined? i must be getting old...
- jlarocco 1y agoIt's a tool that dependson data mining everything. The only surprise is that they weren't already data mining what people feed into it.
- bethekidyouwant 1y agowhat are you doing with the data? What is your legacy going to be other than the data that you leave to be mined? Do you just not want something else to benefit from something that has no benefit to you? If so, why?
- dudefeliciano 1y agoThere is a myriad of reasons i may not want my data to be used. Maybe I am working on proprietary systems, maybe I am using Claude as a psychotherapist, maybe I use it as a tax advisor, the list goes on. Is it unrealistic to think that data may be extrapolated and connected to me in the future?
- tiahura 1y agoMaybe I am working on proprietary systems, maybe I am using Claude as a psychotherapist, maybe I use it as a tax advisor, the list goes on. Then use the business version.
- dudefeliciano 1y agolol wtf kind of reply is that? Maybe relevant for the proprietary system part. I guess you would be fine with a tax advisor or therapist charging you more for a "gossip free service" where they will not disclose your personal information if you just pay more. To be clear, i don't use claude for any of those purposes, it's the principle i am talking about.
- wat10000 1y agoRather misleading title. Missing the important “unless you ask them not to” part. Sounds like a bit of a dark pattern to push you into accepting it and that’s not cool, but you do get a choice.
- robwwilliams 1y agoYou are right. To the best of my knowledge there has notbeen a way to share conversations with Anthropic, and therefore with future versions of Claudes. There was no Opt-in option as far as I know. Straighten me out if I am wrong. I need this opt-in to improve the foundational model that they have trained. It is good, but not good enough.
- flerchin 1y agoMaybe a value to users if done correctly. The way it is right now, you can't teach the model anything. When it gets something wrong, it will probably get the same thing wrong again in another chat.
- phallus 1y agoThat's not how LLMs work.
- esafak 1y ago"If you use Claude for Work, via the API, or other services under our Commercial Terms or other Agreements, then these changes don't apply to you."
- troyvit 1y agoThis is what I don't get. It's so much simpler to use the LLMs with other tools (aider for me) that I don't understand why people are avoiding the API creating monthly accounts to begin with. Is it cheaper? Is Claude Code really that awesome or something? By not even looking at it I guess I never have to know, but from where I sit it seems like people are just putting themselves through a lot of b.s. in order to marry a start-up.
- data-ottawa 1y agoAccording to Claude cost I get about 5x value in token cost by having a max subscription. I upgraded after I hit the equivalent spend in API fees in a month.
- furyofantares 1y ago> Is it cheaper? "ccusage" is telling me I would have spent $2010.90 in the last month if I was paying via the API, rather than $200. But also I do feel Claude Code is quite a bit better than other things I've used, when using the same model. I'm not sure why though, it's a fairly simple program with only a few prompts and only a few tools, it seems like others could catch up immediately by learning some lessons from it.
- troyvit 1y agoDaaaaamn that makes a lot of sense then. For my limited use it doesn't add up but clearly the more deeply embedded the tool is the more it makes sense.
- 0xbadc0de5 1y agoI kind of already assumed they were. I've got some pretty niche use-cases that I'd like to see the models get better at thinking their way through. I benefit from their training on my interactions. So I'll opt in. But I'll also recognize that others might not feel that way, so the services should provide a way for users to opt out.
- robwwilliams 1y agoDitto: was delighted to see this as an option. Am I missing some details? I do not understand the comments in “rug pulls”.
- vb-8448 1y agoSo, I guess they run out of data to train on ... I wonder on how much they can rely on the data and what kind of "knowledge" they can extract. I never give feedback and most time (let's say 5 out of 6) the result cc produce it simply wrong. How can they know the result is valuable or not?
- jlarocco 1y agoHow can they know anything they train on is valuable? At the end of the day it doesn't matter. You got the wrong answer and didn't complain, so why would they care?
- vb-8448 1y agoIn general, I think any human generated content in pre-2022 is valuable because someone did some kind of validation (think about stack overflow answer with user confirming that a specific answer fixed their problem). If they start to feed the next model with LLM generated crap, the overall performance will drop and instead of getting a useful answer 1 of 5 it will be 1 of 10(?) and probably a lot of us will cancel the subscription ... so in the end I think it matters.
- debesyla 1y agoMaybe they can use same method as Google does - if user clicked a link and didn't try to search again, it can assume the link had intended result. So your silence can be used as a warmish signal that you were satisfied. (...or not. Depends on your usage fingerprint.)
- rurp 1y agoI expect that's a very weak signal. When I ask a question and get a completely wrong answer from Claude I usually drop the chat and look elsewhere.
- binary132 1y ago$COMPANY reneged on their solemn pinky promise to not do the bad thing this time? Quelle surprise!
- robwwilliams 1y agoIt is optional. I want the sharing option.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806
- ljosifov 1y agoExcellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever want to deny them their data. It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already. This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.
- ardit33 1y agoThis is a problem for folks with sensitive data, and also for coorporate users who don't want their data being used for it due to all kinds of liability issues. I am sure they will have a coorporate carve out, otherwise it makes them unusuable for some large corps.
- SantalBlush 1y agoIf only you were just giving them your own data. In reality, you're giving them data about your friends, relatives, and coworkers without their consent. Let's stop pretending there is any way to opt out by simply not using these companies' services; it isn't true.
- simonw 1y agoIf you have an API key for a paid service, would you be OK with someone asking ChatGPT or VS Code Copilot for an API key for that service and getting yours, which they then use to rack up bills that you have to pay?
- mushufasa 1y agoisn't this just a change from opt-in to opt-out? will make a big difference but still gives individuals control of their data governance
- joewhale 1y agoi logged on and they did ask right away in a popup window.
- diamond559 1y ago"Training" is now a euphemism for stealing. Guess I can't write any production level code w/ this...
- tiahura 1y agoSome people would say that since the owner isn't being deprived of anything, it's not stealing.
- kukkeliskuu 1y agoLet's say that I use LLM to develop novel software called X. Then my work is used to train the model. Then somebody uses the model to recreate a copy of the of the software X by prompt "create software that works just like X". My novel software is no longer unique. So how come I have not been deprived of anything?
- tiahura 1y agoYou still have what you created, X.
- some_random 1y agoTitle is misleading, they're now opt-out rather than opt-in to your data being used for training. All you have to do is flip a single switch in the options to turn it off, I don't understand why everyone is treating this as being such a big deal. Edit: I just logged in to opt out, they presented me with the switch directly. It was two clicks.
- rkomorn 1y agoI think any switch from opt-out-by-default to opt-in-by-default sucks, especially when it has no clear immediate benefit to the person being opted in. Disclaimer: not a Claude user (not even a prospective one)
- some_random 1y agoI don't think it's good, but people both here and on reddit are acting like this is some Great Betrayal when it's just a single switch that they prominently present to you. If they're going to make this change, this is exactly how I'd want them to do it.
- latexr 1y ago> If they're going to make this change Feels like the complaint is precisely that people don’t want them to make this change. > this is exactly how I'd want them to do it. Sees naive to believe it will always be done like this, especially for new users.
- some_random 1y agoFirst off, I don't think going into the settings and flipping a toggle switch once is a huge burden on those who want to use a service privately. But more importantly, some of the comments here are so hysterical I have to assume that they read the title and jumped to the conclusion that you cannot opt out anymore without a business account.
- latexr 1y ago
- TheRoque 1y agoTo be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
- marssaxman 1y ago"Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" constitutes stealing now? Seems like an excessively draconian interpretation of property rights.
- michaelmior 1y ago"Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" is also very different from a business having machines consume large volumes of data posted on the Internet for the purpose of generating value for them without compensating the creators. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other, but "reading stuff freely posted on the Internet" is an oversimplification.
- marssaxman 1y agoOkay, but "stealing" is also an oversimplification, to the point of absurdity. It makes no sense to put stuff up on the internet where it can freely be downloaded by anyone at any time, by people who are then free to do whatever they like with it on their own hardware, then complain that people have downloaded that stuff and done what they liked with it on their own hardware. "Having machines consume large volumes of data posted on the Internet for the purpose of generating value for them without compensating the creators" is equally a description of Google.
- ehnto 1y agoThey are not free to do whatever they like, there are tomes of laws across all countries governing what someone can and cannot do with your intellectual property. Just because we didn't have the foresight to add in a "if by chance in the future someone invents artificial intelligence, that's not fair use" is a shame, but doesn't make what these companies are doing ethical or morale. I don't disagree regarding Google, I also think they exploited others IP for their own gain. It was once symbiotic with webmasters, but when that stopped they broke that implied good faith contract. In a sense, their snippets and widgets using others IP and no longer providing traffic to the site was the warning shot for where we are now. We should have been modernising IP laws back then.
- darrmit 1y agoI have never input anything into one of these tools that I wasn’t entirely comfortable with them using for training or any other reason. I just assumed it was happening.
- donohoe 1y agoI just logged in on the iOS app and it immediately had a popup giving me the option to opt-out. So yeah, annoying, but they handled it well.
- robwwilliams 1y agoAgreed. I actually want and need Claude and other LLMs to learn from my interactions with them. Exceedingly frustrating that LLMs do not yey hold a longterm memory or embedded trace of conversations per user. I have been asking Anthropic for this option as an opt-in for 6 months. Sure, I understand the concerns many if you have. But in my niche areas of cognitive research, genetics, and neurophilosophy I need Claude to be much smarter than it is now. I am happy to share what I know with Anthropic so that zi eventually have a better companion thinker.
- nbulka 1y agoFor those who do not, or cannot, read this announcement prior to September 28th (think people in the hospital, traveling, missed an email ..) is this not a total breach of contract? Legally, I don't understand how Anthropic's lawyers would have allowed this. Maybe I am just naively optimistic about these matters? I am a Max customer and I might leave! Talk about a "rug pull" ... and I considering moving to an inferior provider! Privacy is a fundamental human right. Please do better, we have not learned our lesson in tech or society because no one is facing any consequences.
- aatd86 1y agoI don't know what they've been training on but I just canceled claude for the second time. Besides the numerous UI bugs of the web interface, incessant flickerings, it has gotten weirdly super condescending and negative in a way I hadn't observed neither in the past nor with other llms. Probably that people accused it of being sycophantic and they have tried to adjust it but they didn't do it well. It'd rather criticize and make assumptions about my behavior rather than keeping it technical. Ha! I prefer gemini. Seems a bit stressed always assuming that I might be frustrated by its answers which is also weird to assume but it is not straight disrespectful at least. So I am back to testing chatgpt. I keep changing.
- novok 1y agoThey need adjustable dials like they do in some API interfaces for power users. Like a sycophancy dial, a safety dial or "turn off the child lock permanently" like they have for microwaves.
- atkailash 1y agoI’ve found Gemini argumentative and maybe condescending too. Mistral feels like a good balance between haughtiness and sycophantism.
- aatd86 1y agoYou're right. Was happening to me as well last week. Especially with the flash version. I am trying the Pro version and it seems to be better. But you are absolutely correct, I've had similar experience. What I have experienced with Claude was just another level though.
- beacon473 1y agoIf you don't like Claude's personallity, ask him to behave differently. It's common for me to periodically say 'don't be so sycophantic' and 'be more critical' when working on technical projects. In your case, try saying 'be nicer' or 'be more jovial'.
- deleted 1y ago
- mrdependable 1y agoThis going to turn into one of those situations where we find out they trained on everyone whether they opted-out or not down the line. I want to keep using Claude, but I also don't want all the solutions I come up with to become common knowledge.
- treyd 1y agoWhy don't you want to share your insights? I agree doing it in a more direct way would be better than it leaking through AI training you don't control. But your phrasing seems stronger than that.
- ukd1 1y agoI think I'm fine with the whole getting better due to something helped it / co find with it. I'm not happy if it's directly 1:1 or attributed to me - chatham house rule for this would be great.
- adastra22 1y agoThat’s impossible. You can’t anonymize data at scale.
- skybrian 1y agoWhen has a company ignored an opt-out preference before? It sounds like you have something in mind.
- tagawa 1y agoNot the OP but… https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/healthline-media-agrees-to-largest-ccpa-5515914/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/healthline-media-agrees-to... "Healthline.com provided an opt-out mechanism, but it was misconfigured and Healthline failed to test it, resulting in data being shared with third parties even after consumers elected to opt out.” https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65772154 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65772154 "The company agreed to pay the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) after it was accused of failing to delete Alexa recordings at the request of parents.” https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/405635/california-fines-menswear-company-over-privacy-opt.html https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/405635/califo... "According to the [California Privacy Protection] agency, Todd Snyder told website visitors they could opt out of data sharing, but didn't actually allow them to do so for 40 days in late 2023 because its opt-out mechanism was improperly configured."
- boredatoms 1y ago..and there goes our authorization to use it at work
- MaJiX19 1y agoUnbelievable. This is on par ethically with bad Meta decisions as far as privacy is concerned. What a dark pattern! What a mess! Look at this botched rollout... It's not ok to do this folks. This is literally what the modal looked like for me on chats that were already in progress. And NO I did not want them to train on this or ANY OF MY DATA UNDER A DIFFERENT CONTRACT. Anthropic PR: "Ma'am, you opted IN to training on your therapy sessions and intellectual property and algorithms and salary and family history!" Don't you remember the modal??? The Modal: https://imgur.com/afqMi0Z https://imgur.com/afqMi0Z
- indigoabstract 1y agoModern AI is built on data. Trusting that our conversations will not be used for training the model is a bit like giving a glutton their favourite food but making them promise not to eat it. Sure, why not. I still expect that our conversations will not leave the premises (ie end up on the internet), because that would be something else, but other than that, I knew what I signed up for.
- nbulka 1y agoDon't normalize this. There are contractual obligations that we have to enforce in order to keep our privacy and humanity.
- racl101 1y agoI always assumed they were. I've been masking / scrubbing my test data this whole time.
- lillecarl 1y agoThanks for informing me, I've opted out. Generally I upvote chats which gives my chat to anthropic when I feel like sharing, I'll keep doing that like before with this opted out.
- elitan 1y agoi'm fine with it. happy to seed.
- andreagrandi 1y agoYou can opt out. It’s written quit quite clearly
- distances 1y agoI don't think that retention part was clear at all. It was separate from the opt-out. I assume I'm now opted out but that they'll keep the data for five years anyway.
- robwwilliams 1y agoYou want them to flush your conversations on your own schedule. That I can understand. If you delete a conversation it should be DELETED.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kristopolous 1y agoThis needs to be a two way street ... one where we have programs that feed in piles of constant garbage unless they pay us for the privilege of clean data. When things are free (in this case your input), they will get abused. Put a cost on it.
- Scribbd 1y agoI know this is probably not related, but this is right after the release of the AI safety index that praised Anthropic for not using user data… And here I was considering them because they did so much better on that test. https://futureoflife.org/ai-safety-index-summer-2025/ https://futureoflife.org/ai-safety-index-summer-2025/
- djmips 1y ago"If you choose not to allow us to use your chats and coding sessions to improve Claude, your chats will be retained in our back-end storage systems for up to 30 days."
- carbonbioxide 1y agoIf you're plan to keep improving LLM's is based on more training, then we have an AI hype problem.
- awalsh128 1y agoWow, a 5 year retention. That seems so arbitrary and excessive. As someone who has been involved with privacy compliance, this is crazy. Does this apply for European users too? I don't know what the business justification for this would be but I am sure some lawyer could explain this better.
- timsh 1y agoIm all in for the ai hate, but this kind of hysteria on HN is devaluing all the serious discussions about AI safety, skepticism and regulation. They literally show you a full-page popup with clear text snd OPT IN toggle. It doesn’t seem really shady to me (or worth 10 separate posts on HN). That said, if this popup doesn’t appear when you sign up after 28th, that would be a dark pattern and shady stuff. For now it’s just clickbait