5 ms·

You're interacting with hundreds of systems whose job it is to simply transit your information. Privacy there makes sense. However, you're also talking to someo

You're interacting with hundreds of systems whose job it is to simply transit your information. Privacy there makes sense. However, you're also talking to someone on the other end of all those systems. Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private?

sophacles 1y ago
In many circumstances yes. When I'm talking to my doctor, or lawyer, or bank. When there's a signed NDA. And so on. There are circumstances where the other person can be (and is) obliged to maintain privacy. One of those is interacting with an AI system where the terms of service guarantee privacy.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  Yes, but there are also times when other factors are more important than privacy. If you tell your doctor you're going to go home and kill your wife, they are ethically bound to report you to the police, despite your right of doctor patient confidentiality. Which is similar to what openai says here about "imminent harm"
kouteiheika 1y ago
An AI chatbot is not a person, and you're not talking to anyone; you're querying a (fancy) automated system. I fundamentally disagree that those queries should not be guaranteed private. Here's a thought experiment: you're a gay person living in a country where being gay is illegal and results in a death penalty. You use ChatGPT in a way which makes your sexuality apparent; should OpenAI be allowed to share this query with anyone? Should they be allowed to store it? What if it inadvertently leaks (which has happened before!), or their database gets hacked and dumped, and now the morality police of your country are combing through it looking for criminals like you? Privacy is a fundamental right of every human being; I will gladly die on this hill.
- nine_k 1y ago
  If you are talking to a remote entity not controlled by you, you should assume that your communication is somehow accessible to whoever has internal access that other entity. That as well may be not the entity's legitimate owners, but law-breakers or law enforcement. So, no, not private by default, but only by goodwill and coincidence. There's a reason why e.g. banks want to have all critical systems on premises, under their physical control.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    That’s a rational and cautious assumption but there should also be regulations that render it less necessary placed upon companies large enough to shoulder the burden.
    - nine_k 1y ago
      The bodies that are in a position to effect such regulations are also the bodies that are interested in looking at your (yes, your) private communication. No, formally being a liberal democracy helps little, see PATRIOT Act, Chat Control, etc. The only secure position for a company (provided that the company is not interested in reading your communication) is the position of a blind carrier that cannot decrypt what you say; e.g. Mullvad VPN demonstrated that it works. I don't think that an LLM hosting company can use such an approach, so...
      - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
        Yeah, I agree.
  - kouteiheika 1y ago
    I am assuming that my communications are not private, but it doesn't change the fact that these companies should be held to a higher standard than that and those rights should be codified into the law.
  - yndoendo 1y ago
gspencley 1y ago
> Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private? It depends. If you're speaking to a doctor or a lawyer, yes, by law they are bound to keep your conversation strictly confidential except in some very narrow circumstances. But it goes beyond those two examples. If I have an NDA with the person I am speaking with on the other end of the line, yes I have the "right" to "force" the other person to keep our conversation private given that we have a contractual agreement to do so. As far as OpenAI goes, I'm of the opinion that OpenAI - as well as most other businesses - have the right to set the terms by which they sell or offer services to the public. That means if they wanted a policy of "all chats are public" that would be within their right to impose as far as I'm concerned. It's their creation. Their business. I don't believe people are entitled to dictate terms to them, legal restrictions notwithstanding. But in so far as they promise that chats are private, that becomes a contract at the time of transaction. If you give them money (consideration) with the impression that your chats with their LLM are private because they communicated that, then they are now contractually bound to honour the terms of that transaction. The terms that they subjected themselves to when either advertising their services or in the form of a EULA and/or TOS presented at the time of transaction.
citizenpaul 1y ago
> Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private? In most of the USA that already is the law.

sophacles 1y ago

In many circumstances yes. When I'm talking to my doctor, or lawyer, or bank. When there's a signed NDA. And so on. There are circumstances where the other person can be (and is) obliged to maintain privacy. One of those is interacting with an AI system where the terms of service guarantee privacy.

IncreasePosts 1y ago
Yes, but there are also times when other factors are more important than privacy. If you tell your doctor you're going to go home and kill your wife, they are ethically bound to report you to the police, despite your right of doctor patient confidentiality. Which is similar to what openai says here about "imminent harm"

kouteiheika 1y ago

An AI chatbot is not a person, and you're not talking to anyone; you're querying a (fancy) automated system. I fundamentally disagree that those queries should not be guaranteed private. Here's a thought experiment: you're a gay person living in a country where being gay is illegal and results in a death penalty. You use ChatGPT in a way which makes your sexuality apparent; should OpenAI be allowed to share this query with anyone? Should they be allowed to store it? What if it inadvertently leaks (which has happened before!), or their database gets hacked and dumped, and now the morality police of your country are combing through it looking for criminals like you? Privacy is a fundamental right of every human being; I will gladly die on this hill.

nine_k 1y ago
If you are talking to a remote entity not controlled by you, you should assume that your communication is somehow accessible to whoever has internal access that other entity. That as well may be not the entity's legitimate owners, but law-breakers or law enforcement. So, no, not private by default, but only by goodwill and coincidence. There's a reason why e.g. banks want to have all critical systems on premises, under their physical control.
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  That’s a rational and cautious assumption but there should also be regulations that render it less necessary placed upon companies large enough to shoulder the burden.
  - nine_k 1y ago
    The bodies that are in a position to effect such regulations are also the bodies that are interested in looking at your (yes, your) private communication. No, formally being a liberal democracy helps little, see PATRIOT Act, Chat Control, etc. The only secure position for a company (provided that the company is not interested in reading your communication) is the position of a blind carrier that cannot decrypt what you say; e.g. Mullvad VPN demonstrated that it works. I don't think that an LLM hosting company can use such an approach, so...
    - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
      Yeah, I agree.
- kouteiheika 1y ago
  I am assuming that my communications are not private, but it doesn't change the fact that these companies should be held to a higher standard than that and those rights should be codified into the law.
- yndoendo 1y ago

gspencley 1y ago

> Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private? It depends. If you're speaking to a doctor or a lawyer, yes, by law they are bound to keep your conversation strictly confidential except in some very narrow circumstances. But it goes beyond those two examples. If I have an NDA with the person I am speaking with on the other end of the line, yes I have the "right" to "force" the other person to keep our conversation private given that we have a contractual agreement to do so. As far as OpenAI goes, I'm of the opinion that OpenAI - as well as most other businesses - have the right to set the terms by which they sell or offer services to the public. That means if they wanted a policy of "all chats are public" that would be within their right to impose as far as I'm concerned. It's their creation. Their business. I don't believe people are entitled to dictate terms to them, legal restrictions notwithstanding. But in so far as they promise that chats are private, that becomes a contract at the time of transaction. If you give them money (consideration) with the impression that your chats with their LLM are private because they communicated that, then they are now contractually bound to honour the terms of that transaction. The terms that they subjected themselves to when either advertising their services or in the form of a EULA and/or TOS presented at the time of transaction.

citizenpaul 1y ago

> Do you have a right to force the other person to keep your conversation private? In most of the USA that already is the law.