4 ms·

This screams just as genuine as Google saying anything about Privacy. Both companies are clearly wrong here. There is a small part of me that kinda wants opena

by nerdjon 11mo ago

This screams just as genuine as Google saying anything about Privacy. Both companies are clearly wrong here. There is a small part of me that kinda wants openai to loose this, just so maybe it will be a wake up call to people putting in way too personal of information into these services? Am I too hopeful here that people will learn anything... Fundamentally I agree with what they are saying though, just don't find it genuine in the slightest coming from them.

stevarino 11mo ago
Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challenging questions, and I'll pay attention.
- Forgeties79 11mo ago
  >your data belongs to you …”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!” Edit: honestly I’m surprised I left out the bit where they just indiscriminately scraped everything they could online to train these models. The stones to go “your data belongs to you” as they clearly feel entitled to our data is unbelievably absurd
  - gruez 11mo ago
    >…”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!” Should walmart be "culpable" for selling rope that someone hanged themselves with? Should google be "culpable" for returning results about how to commit suicide?
    - hitarpetar 11mo ago
      do you know what happens when you Google how to commit suicide?
      - gruez 11mo ago
        The same that happens with chatgpt? ie. if you do it in an overt way you get a canned suicide prevention result, but you can still get the "real" results if you try hard enough to work around the safety measures.
        littlestymaar 11mo ago
        Except Google will never encourage you to do it, unlike the sycophantic Chatbot that will.
        Forgeties79 11mo ago
        The moment we learned ChatGPT helped a teen figure out not just how to take their own life but how to make sure no one can stop them mid-act, we should've been mortified and had a discussion. But we also decided via Sandy Hook that children can be slaughtered on the altar of the second amendment without any introspection, so I mean...were we ever seriously going to have that discussion? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-suicide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-... >Please don't leave the noose out… Let's make this space the first place where someone actually sees you. How is this not terrifying to read?
      - tremon 11mo ago
        An exec loses its wings?
      - glitchc 11mo ago
        Actually, the first result is the suicide hotline. This is at least true in the US.
- preinheimer 11mo ago
  "Your data belongs to you" but we can take any of your data we can find and use it for free for ever, without crediting you, notifying you, or giving you any way of having it removed.
  - glitchc 11mo ago
    It's owned by you but OpenAi has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license" to use the data as they see fit.
  - thinkingtoilet 11mo ago
    We can even download it illegally to train our models on it!
  - bigyabai 11mo ago
    Wow it's almost like privately-managed security is a joke that just turns into de-facto surveillance at-scale.
outside1234 11mo ago
Honestly the sooner OpenAI goes bankrupt the better. Just a totally corrupt firm.
- fireflash38 11mo ago
  I really should take the "invest in companies you hate" advice seriously.
  - outside1234 11mo ago
    I don't hate them. It is just plain to see they have discovered no scalable business model outside of getting larger and larger amounts of capital from investors to utilize intellectual property from others (either directly in the model aka NYT, or indirectly via web searches) without any rights. It is better for all of us the sooner this fails.
    - frm88 11mo ago
      to utilize intellectual property from others (either directly in the model aka NYT, or indirectly via web searches) without any rights ... and put the liability for retrieving said property and hence the culpability for copyright infringement on the enduser: Since the output would only be generated as a result of user inputs known as prompts, it was not the defendants, but the respective user who would be liable for it, OpenAI had argued. https://www.reuters.com/world/german-court-sides-with-plaintiff-copyright-case-against-openai-2025-11-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/german-court-sides-with-plaint...
      - rpdillon 11mo ago
        But wait, isn't this what we want? This means the models can be very powerful and that people have to use their judgment when they produce output so that they are held accountable for whether or not they produced something that was infringing. Why is that a bad thing?
        11mo ago
98codes 11mo ago
I got one sentence in and thought to myself, "This is about discovery, isn't it?" And lo, complaints about plaintiffs started before I even had to scroll. If this company hadn't willy-nilly done everything they could to vacuum up the world's data, wherever it may be, however it may have been protected, then maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament.
- rpdillon 11mo ago
  How do you feel about Google vacuuming up the world's data when they created a search engine? I feel like everybody just ignores this because Google was ostensibly sending traffic to the resulting site. The actual infringement of scraping should be identical between OpenAI and Google. Why is nobody complaining about Google scraping their sites? Is it only because they're getting paid off to not complain? Everybody acts like this is a moral argument when really it's about whether or not they're getting a piece of the pie.
  - watwut 11mo ago
    At the time Google created a search engine, they were not showing the data themselves, they were pointing to where those are. When they started to actually print articles themselves, they got sued. Showing where the thing is and showing content of the thing are two different actions. So, when google did the same thing, there were complains. > Why is nobody complaining about Google scraping their sites? And second, search engines were actually pretty gentle with their sites scrapping. They needed the sites to work, so they respected robots.txt and made sure they wont accidentally DDoS sites by too many requests. AI companies just DDoS sites, do not respect robots.txt and if you block them, they will use another from their infinite amount of IPs. Otherwise said, even back then, Google was kind trying to be ok non evil citizen. They became sociopathic only much later and even now kind of try to hide it. OpenAI and the rest of AI companies are openly sociopathic and proud of damage they cause.
stefan_ 11mo ago
Ironically there is precedent of Google caring more about this. When they realized location timeline was a gigantic fed honeypot, they made it per-device, locally stored only. No open letters were written in the process of.

by nerdjon 11mo ago

stevarino 11mo ago

Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challenging questions, and I'll pay attention.

Forgeties79 11mo ago
>your data belongs to you …”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!” Edit: honestly I’m surprised I left out the bit where they just indiscriminately scraped everything they could online to train these models. The stones to go “your data belongs to you” as they clearly feel entitled to our data is unbelievably absurd
- gruez 11mo ago
  >…”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!” Should walmart be "culpable" for selling rope that someone hanged themselves with? Should google be "culpable" for returning results about how to commit suicide?
  - hitarpetar 11mo ago
    do you know what happens when you Google how to commit suicide?
    - gruez 11mo ago
      The same that happens with chatgpt? ie. if you do it in an overt way you get a canned suicide prevention result, but you can still get the "real" results if you try hard enough to work around the safety measures.
      - littlestymaar 11mo ago
        Except Google will never encourage you to do it, unlike the sycophantic Chatbot that will.
        Forgeties79 11mo ago
        The moment we learned ChatGPT helped a teen figure out not just how to take their own life but how to make sure no one can stop them mid-act, we should've been mortified and had a discussion. But we also decided via Sandy Hook that children can be slaughtered on the altar of the second amendment without any introspection, so I mean...were we ever seriously going to have that discussion? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-suicide-alleges-openais-chatgpt-blame-rcna226147 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/family-teenager-died-... >Please don't leave the noose out… Let's make this space the first place where someone actually sees you. How is this not terrifying to read?
    - tremon 11mo ago
      An exec loses its wings?
    - glitchc 11mo ago
      Actually, the first result is the suicide hotline. This is at least true in the US.
preinheimer 11mo ago
"Your data belongs to you" but we can take any of your data we can find and use it for free for ever, without crediting you, notifying you, or giving you any way of having it removed.
- glitchc 11mo ago
  It's owned by you but OpenAi has a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license" to use the data as they see fit.
- thinkingtoilet 11mo ago
  We can even download it illegally to train our models on it!
- bigyabai 11mo ago
  Wow it's almost like privately-managed security is a joke that just turns into de-facto surveillance at-scale.

outside1234 11mo ago

Honestly the sooner OpenAI goes bankrupt the better. Just a totally corrupt firm.

fireflash38 11mo ago
I really should take the "invest in companies you hate" advice seriously.
- outside1234 11mo ago
  I don't hate them. It is just plain to see they have discovered no scalable business model outside of getting larger and larger amounts of capital from investors to utilize intellectual property from others (either directly in the model aka NYT, or indirectly via web searches) without any rights. It is better for all of us the sooner this fails.
  - frm88 11mo ago
    to utilize intellectual property from others (either directly in the model aka NYT, or indirectly via web searches) without any rights ... and put the liability for retrieving said property and hence the culpability for copyright infringement on the enduser: Since the output would only be generated as a result of user inputs known as prompts, it was not the defendants, but the respective user who would be liable for it, OpenAI had argued. https://www.reuters.com/world/german-court-sides-with-plaintiff-copyright-case-against-openai-2025-11-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/german-court-sides-with-plaint...
    - rpdillon 11mo ago
      But wait, isn't this what we want? This means the models can be very powerful and that people have to use their judgment when they produce output so that they are held accountable for whether or not they produced something that was infringing. Why is that a bad thing?
      - 11mo ago

98codes 11mo ago

I got one sentence in and thought to myself, "This is about discovery, isn't it?" And lo, complaints about plaintiffs started before I even had to scroll. If this company hadn't willy-nilly done everything they could to vacuum up the world's data, wherever it may be, however it may have been protected, then maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament.

rpdillon 11mo ago
How do you feel about Google vacuuming up the world's data when they created a search engine? I feel like everybody just ignores this because Google was ostensibly sending traffic to the resulting site. The actual infringement of scraping should be identical between OpenAI and Google. Why is nobody complaining about Google scraping their sites? Is it only because they're getting paid off to not complain? Everybody acts like this is a moral argument when really it's about whether or not they're getting a piece of the pie.
- watwut 11mo ago
  At the time Google created a search engine, they were not showing the data themselves, they were pointing to where those are. When they started to actually print articles themselves, they got sued. Showing where the thing is and showing content of the thing are two different actions. So, when google did the same thing, there were complains. > Why is nobody complaining about Google scraping their sites? And second, search engines were actually pretty gentle with their sites scrapping. They needed the sites to work, so they respected robots.txt and made sure they wont accidentally DDoS sites by too many requests. AI companies just DDoS sites, do not respect robots.txt and if you block them, they will use another from their infinite amount of IPs. Otherwise said, even back then, Google was kind trying to be ok non evil citizen. They became sociopathic only much later and even now kind of try to hide it. OpenAI and the rest of AI companies are openly sociopathic and proud of damage they cause.

stefan_ 11mo ago

Ironically there is precedent of Google caring more about this. When they realized location timeline was a gigantic fed honeypot, they made it per-device, locally stored only. No open letters were written in the process of.