8 ms·

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many o

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations By contrast the purpose of NYT's request is both clear and limited The documents requested are not being made public by the plaintiffs. The documents will presumably be redacted to protect any confidential information before being produced to the plaintiffs, the documents can only be used by the plaintiffs for the purpose of the litigation against OpenAI and, unlike OpenAI who has collected and stored these conversations for as long as OpenAI desires, the plaintiffs are prohibited from retaining copies of the documents after the litigation is concluded The privacy issue here has been created by OpenAI for their own commercial benefit It is not even clear what this benefit, if any, will be as OpenAI continues to search for a "business model" Wanton data collection

silveraxe93 1y ago
No it's not. It's literally a court order mandating them to collect this data. - [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20-million-user-chats-in-chatgpt-lawsuit-nyt-wants-120-million/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20...
- sailfast 1y ago
  This is an excellent article and source. Thank you.
- otterley 1y ago
  This article says nothing of the sort. The court order is to preserve existing logs they already have, not to disable logging, and hand all the logs over the plaintiffs. OpenAI's objections are mainly that 1/there are too many logs (so they're proposing a sample instead) and that 2/there's identifying data in the logs and so they are being "forced" to anonymize the logs at their expense (even though it's what they want as a condition of transferring the logs). There is nothing in the article that mentions OpenAI being forced to create new logs they don't already have.
  - silveraxe93 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - pclmulqdq 1y ago
      If OpenAI truly didn't keep conversation records for any length of time, they would not be subject to this kind of order. Lots of stateless services get these and are able to defeat them because they never store the user's data. The fact that they store them at all means that they are in scope for a preservation order. It also means that they are in scope for all manner of usage by OpenAI themselves even if a user requests deletion.
      - dghlsakjg 1y ago
        It seems as if the court has forced OpenAI into collecting logs that they weren't otherwise collecting, or that they were deleting at user request. So in this case not keeping logs as ordered by the court would be contempt of court.
        otterley 1y ago
        Respectfully, it doesn’t matter the way it “seems,” it matters what is. They were collecting these logs, and as soon as they got the preservation order, they disabled deletion functionality and notified their customers of that. There is a separate higher-tier private API customers can pay for that never had logging enabled, and the court did not force the company to add it.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    This response is misleading. Almost all computer services keep logs for a short period of time, so the court order to retain existing information is quite a bit more powerful than a layman would think. Because a huge amount of data is retained for a short period of time and then rapidly deleted in most web services I've worked on for the past 30 years. This is true in services like Datadog, New Relic, and logging services like Splunk. But even privacy-focused services like Mullvad keep logs for 24 hours to monitor for abuse. So this concept that retaining logs is significantly weaker than not ordering the collection is really a bit of misdirection. I'm not sure whether it's intentional, but it's definitely misleading.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.551.0.pdf https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6... https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.42.0.pdf https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Aurornis 1y ago
  The two documents you linked are responses to specific parts of OpenAI's objection. They're not good sources for the original order. Nevertheless, you're generally correct but you don't realize why: A core feature of ChatGPT is that it keeps your conversation history right there so you can click on it, review it, and continue conversations across all of your devices. The court order is to preserve what is already present in the system even if the user asks to delete it. For those who are confused: A core feature of ChatGPT and other LLM accounts is that your past conversations are available to return to, until you specifically delete them. The problem now is that if a user asks for the conversation to be deleted, OpenAI has to retain the conversation for the court order even though it appears deleted.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Why does OpenAI collect and retain for 30 days^1 chats that the user wants to be deleted It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery If OpenAI was not collecting these chats in the ordinary course of its business before being sued by the NYT and many others, then there would be no "deleted chats" for OpenAI to be compelled by court order to retain and produce to the plaintiffs 1. Or whatever period OpenAI decides on. It could change at any time for any reason. However OpenAI cannot change their retention policy to some shortened period after being sued. Google tried this a few years ago. It began destroying chats between employees after Google was on notice it was going to be sued by the US government and state AGs
macki0 1y ago
> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Its needed for the conversation history feature, a core feature of the ChatGPT product Its like saying "What is the purpose of Google Photos storing millions of private images"
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  This is true but why retain deleted conversations?
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    That's the objection: The court order requires them to retain everything they currently have, even if the user requests that it be deleted.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    ChatGPT (the app) specifically says they keep deleted conversations for up to 30 days. That's probably why.
    - port3000 1y ago
      yeah but the link states "The 20 million user conversations were randomly sampled from Dec. 2022 to Nov. 2024" so this makes no sense. 2024 was much longer than 30 days ago
      - rpdillon 1y ago
        Because the court ordered them to retain the records longer than they normally would.
  - valleyer 1y ago
    Because the New York Times sued them and made them. https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/ https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Is there a technical limitation that prevents chat histories from being stored locally on the user's computer instead of being stored on someone else's computer(s) Why do chat histories need to be accessible by OpenAI, its service partners and anyone with the authority to request them from OpenAI If users want this design, as suggested by HN commenters, if users want their chat histories to be accessible to OpenAI, its service providers and anyone with authority to request them from OpenAI, then wouldn't it also be true that these users are not much concerned with "privacy" If so, then why would OpenAI proclaim they are "fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy", knowing that NYT is prohibited from making the logs public and users generally do not care much about "privacy" anyway The restrictions on plaintiff NYT's use of the logs are greater than the restrictions, if any,^1 on OpenAI's use of them 1. If any such restrictions existed, for example if OpenAI stated "We don't do X" in a "privacy policy" and people interpreted this as a legally enforceable restriction,^2 how would a user verify that the statement was true, i.e., that OpenAI has not violated the "restriction". Silicon Valley companies like OpenAI are highly secretive 2. As opposed to a statement by OpenAi of what OpenAI allegedly does not do. Compare with a potentially legally-enforceable promise such as "OpenAI will not do X". Also consider that OpenAI may do Y, Z, etc. and make no mention of it to anyone. As it happens Silicon Valley companies generally have a reputation for dishonesty
- Aurornis 1y ago
  > Is there a technical limitation that prevents chat histories from being stored locally on the user's computer People access ChatGPT through different interfaces: Web, desktop app, their phones, tablets. Therefore the conversations are stored on the servers. It's really not some hidden plot against users to steal their data. It's just how most users expect their apps to work.
  - andrepd 1y ago
    Nonsense. It's easy to design an app where the server stores all information in an encrypted form. If OpenAI "cared about privacy" like this PR piece claims, they would do this. They don't because they (obviously) don't care and they (obviously) want the data for their purposes.
Aurornis 1y ago
> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Your previous ChatGPT conversations show up right in the ChatGPT interface. They have to store the private conversations to enable users to bring them up in the interface. This isn't a secretive, hidden data collection. It's a clear and obvious feature right in the product. They're fighting for the ability to not retain secret records of past conversations that have been deleted. The problem with the court order is that it requires them to keep the conversations even after a user presses the 'Delete' button on them.
- baobun 1y ago
  They could have been stored at the client, and encrypted before optionally synced back to OpenAI servers in a way that the stored chats can only be read back by the user. Signal illustrates how this is possible. OpenAI made a choice in how the feature was and is implemented.
  - thorum 1y ago
    > Our long-term roadmap includes advanced security features designed to keep your data private, including client-side encryption for your messages with ChatGPT. We believe these features will help keep your private conversations private and inaccessible to anyone else, even OpenAI.
    - JCM9 1y ago
      This sort of thing is pretty trivial to implement from the start, they just chose not to because they wanted the data themselves
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - cruffle_duffle 1y ago
        Hah. I seriously doubt it is even close to trivial. Especially when they are to exist on any device you use the service from.
cush 1y ago
>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  "Have you used ChatGPT?" No Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Maybe some of those voters are ChatGPT users I do searching from the command line in text mode. The script I use keeps a "log" (a customised SERP) of all query strings and search result URLs. I also have these URLs stored in the logs from the forward proxy. These are compressed using RePair. I can search the compressed logs faster this way than with something like ztsd -dc log.zst|grep pattern or rg -z pattern log.zst
  - buffington 1y ago
    > No Given that, I'd suggest not offering "alternatives" to the features described in TFA for a service you've never used. There are people here talking about oranges, a lot of them with domain expertise, and you're not just talking about apples, you're talking about bird migrations.
  - fenomas 1y ago
    > Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Sure, and also downvotes - that measures factionalism, not correctness. But tech wise, you're confused. Functionally speaking chatgpt is a shared document editor - the server needs to store chat histories for the same reason Google Docs stores the content of documents. Users can submit text to chatgpt.com from one browser, and later edit that text from the app or a different browser. Ergo the text is stored on the server, simple as that.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    Downvotes is a tiny faction 3 versus 190+, so far Many commenters cannot distinguish rhetorical questions from questions that seek an answer By attempting to answer a rhetorical question one may only strengthen the point being made by the question, for example, poor decision-making, and may reveal an absence self-awareness
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
If an analogy to the history of search engines can be made,^1 then we know that log retention policies in the US can change over time. The user has no control over such changes https://ide.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/w23815.pdf https://ide.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/w23815.pdf Companies operating popular www search engines might claim that the need for longer retention is "to provide better service" or some similar reason that focuses on users' interests rather than the company's interests^2 2. Generally, advertising services This paper attempts to expose such claims as bogus 1. According to some reports OpenAI is sending some queries to Google
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Amusingly, this discussion thread is filled with replies that attempt to "answer" the question of "why" OpenAI collects chat histories even when it must have known it would be sued for copyright infringment For users affected by OpenAI's conduct, an "answer" makes no difference. Anyone can construct any "answer" they want and we can see that in this thread. For users affected by OpenAI's conduct, it does not matter In the above paper on search engines, the claim was that longer retention of sensitive data leads to better search. This was the "answer" presented in response to the question of "why" But the "answer" is only misdirection. The companies have no reputation for being honest and their operations are non-transparent. Accordingly, user focus will be on the consequences for users of the company's practices, not "why" Some readers are probably too young to have read through the AOL search data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_log_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_log_release Did anyone care "why" AOL released the data IMHO, it is unfortunate that papers like the one above need to published The question of "why" is rhetorical. It is meant to the draw attention to the consequences for users, not to seek an "answer"
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
News Plaintiffs October 15, 2025 Letter Motion to Compel https://ia801205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.940.0.pdf https://ia801205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... OpenAI October 30, 2025 Letter Opposing Motion to Compel https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.976.0.pdf https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... November 7, 2025 Order on Motion to Compel https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.987.0.pdf https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... "OpenAI has failed to explain how its consumers privacy rights are not adequately protected by: (1) the existing protective order in this multidistrict litigation or (2) OpenAIs exhaustive de-identification of all of the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs.1 1. As News Plaintiffs point out, OpenAI has spent the last two and a half months processing and deidentifying this 20 million record sample. (ECF 719 at 1 n.1)."
tzs 1y ago
> The documents requested are not being made public by the plaintiffs In fact, as far as I understand it, they could not be made public by the plaintiffs even if they wanted to do so, or even if one of their employees decided to leak them. That's because the plaintiffs themselves never actually see the documents. They will only be seen by the plaintiff's lawyers and any experts hired by those lawyers to analyze them.
- pkilgore 1y ago
  You are correct. I've operated under many protective orders that require me to redact portions of reports clients paid for because they were not authorized to see those specific parts due to the order.
amypetrik8 1y ago
>Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") To train the AI further. Obviously. Simple as.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"Fighting the New York Times' lawyers' and experts' invasion of user privacy"
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Instead of asking, "What is the purpose of OpenAI storing milllions of private conversations" and having HN commenters (mis)interpret this as something other than a rhetorical question, one could ask, "What are the consequences for users of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations that users do not wish to save" HN replies might try to answer this as well but the answer is already known to the world The conversations will be made available to the plaintiffs' (including New York Times') attorneys and the plaintiffs' attorneys' experts If OpenAI did not store such conversations as a matter of practice before being sued, then there would be no private conversations to make available to the plaintiffs' attorneys and their experts 275 upvotes AFAICT, most HN readers did _not_ misintepret the question HN replies != HN, it is a small subset of the readership

silveraxe93 1y ago

No it's not. It's literally a court order mandating them to collect this data. - [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20-million-user-chats-in-chatgpt-lawsuit-nyt-wants-120-million/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20...

sailfast 1y ago
This is an excellent article and source. Thank you.
otterley 1y ago
This article says nothing of the sort. The court order is to preserve existing logs they already have, not to disable logging, and hand all the logs over the plaintiffs. OpenAI's objections are mainly that 1/there are too many logs (so they're proposing a sample instead) and that 2/there's identifying data in the logs and so they are being "forced" to anonymize the logs at their expense (even though it's what they want as a condition of transferring the logs). There is nothing in the article that mentions OpenAI being forced to create new logs they don't already have.
- silveraxe93 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    If OpenAI truly didn't keep conversation records for any length of time, they would not be subject to this kind of order. Lots of stateless services get these and are able to defeat them because they never store the user's data. The fact that they store them at all means that they are in scope for a preservation order. It also means that they are in scope for all manner of usage by OpenAI themselves even if a user requests deletion.
    - dghlsakjg 1y ago
      It seems as if the court has forced OpenAI into collecting logs that they weren't otherwise collecting, or that they were deleting at user request. So in this case not keeping logs as ordered by the court would be contempt of court.
      - otterley 1y ago
        Respectfully, it doesn’t matter the way it “seems,” it matters what is. They were collecting these logs, and as soon as they got the preservation order, they disabled deletion functionality and notified their customers of that. There is a separate higher-tier private API customers can pay for that never had logging enabled, and the court did not force the company to add it.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  This response is misleading. Almost all computer services keep logs for a short period of time, so the court order to retain existing information is quite a bit more powerful than a layman would think. Because a huge amount of data is retained for a short period of time and then rapidly deleted in most web services I've worked on for the past 30 years. This is true in services like Datadog, New Relic, and logging services like Splunk. But even privacy-focused services like Mullvad keep logs for 24 hours to monitor for abuse. So this concept that retaining logs is significantly weaker than not ordering the collection is really a bit of misdirection. I'm not sure whether it's intentional, but it's definitely misleading.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.551.0.pdf https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6... https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396/gov.uscourts.nysd.640396.42.0.pdf https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Aurornis 1y ago
The two documents you linked are responses to specific parts of OpenAI's objection. They're not good sources for the original order. Nevertheless, you're generally correct but you don't realize why: A core feature of ChatGPT is that it keeps your conversation history right there so you can click on it, review it, and continue conversations across all of your devices. The court order is to preserve what is already present in the system even if the user asks to delete it. For those who are confused: A core feature of ChatGPT and other LLM accounts is that your past conversations are available to return to, until you specifically delete them. The problem now is that if a user asks for the conversation to be deleted, OpenAI has to retain the conversation for the court order even though it appears deleted.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Why does OpenAI collect and retain for 30 days^1 chats that the user wants to be deleted It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery If OpenAI was not collecting these chats in the ordinary course of its business before being sued by the NYT and many others, then there would be no "deleted chats" for OpenAI to be compelled by court order to retain and produce to the plaintiffs 1. Or whatever period OpenAI decides on. It could change at any time for any reason. However OpenAI cannot change their retention policy to some shortened period after being sued. Google tried this a few years ago. It began destroying chats between employees after Google was on notice it was going to be sued by the US government and state AGs

macki0 1y ago

> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Its needed for the conversation history feature, a core feature of the ChatGPT product Its like saying "What is the purpose of Google Photos storing millions of private images"

SilverElfin 1y ago
This is true but why retain deleted conversations?
- Aurornis 1y ago
  That's the objection: The court order requires them to retain everything they currently have, even if the user requests that it be deleted.
- kulahan 1y ago
  ChatGPT (the app) specifically says they keep deleted conversations for up to 30 days. That's probably why.
  - port3000 1y ago
    yeah but the link states "The 20 million user conversations were randomly sampled from Dec. 2022 to Nov. 2024" so this makes no sense. 2024 was much longer than 30 days ago
    - rpdillon 1y ago
      Because the court ordered them to retain the records longer than they normally would.
- valleyer 1y ago
  Because the New York Times sued them and made them. https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/ https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Is there a technical limitation that prevents chat histories from being stored locally on the user's computer instead of being stored on someone else's computer(s) Why do chat histories need to be accessible by OpenAI, its service partners and anyone with the authority to request them from OpenAI If users want this design, as suggested by HN commenters, if users want their chat histories to be accessible to OpenAI, its service providers and anyone with authority to request them from OpenAI, then wouldn't it also be true that these users are not much concerned with "privacy" If so, then why would OpenAI proclaim they are "fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy", knowing that NYT is prohibited from making the logs public and users generally do not care much about "privacy" anyway The restrictions on plaintiff NYT's use of the logs are greater than the restrictions, if any,^1 on OpenAI's use of them 1. If any such restrictions existed, for example if OpenAI stated "We don't do X" in a "privacy policy" and people interpreted this as a legally enforceable restriction,^2 how would a user verify that the statement was true, i.e., that OpenAI has not violated the "restriction". Silicon Valley companies like OpenAI are highly secretive 2. As opposed to a statement by OpenAi of what OpenAI allegedly does not do. Compare with a potentially legally-enforceable promise such as "OpenAI will not do X". Also consider that OpenAI may do Y, Z, etc. and make no mention of it to anyone. As it happens Silicon Valley companies generally have a reputation for dishonesty

Aurornis 1y ago
> Is there a technical limitation that prevents chat histories from being stored locally on the user's computer People access ChatGPT through different interfaces: Web, desktop app, their phones, tablets. Therefore the conversations are stored on the servers. It's really not some hidden plot against users to steal their data. It's just how most users expect their apps to work.
- andrepd 1y ago
  Nonsense. It's easy to design an app where the server stores all information in an encrypted form. If OpenAI "cared about privacy" like this PR piece claims, they would do this. They don't because they (obviously) don't care and they (obviously) want the data for their purposes.

Aurornis 1y ago

> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Your previous ChatGPT conversations show up right in the ChatGPT interface. They have to store the private conversations to enable users to bring them up in the interface. This isn't a secretive, hidden data collection. It's a clear and obvious feature right in the product. They're fighting for the ability to not retain secret records of past conversations that have been deleted. The problem with the court order is that it requires them to keep the conversations even after a user presses the 'Delete' button on them.

baobun 1y ago
They could have been stored at the client, and encrypted before optionally synced back to OpenAI servers in a way that the stored chats can only be read back by the user. Signal illustrates how this is possible. OpenAI made a choice in how the feature was and is implemented.
- thorum 1y ago
  > Our long-term roadmap includes advanced security features designed to keep your data private, including client-side encryption for your messages with ChatGPT. We believe these features will help keep your private conversations private and inaccessible to anyone else, even OpenAI.
  - JCM9 1y ago
    This sort of thing is pretty trivial to implement from the start, they just chose not to because they wanted the data themselves
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - cruffle_duffle 1y ago
      Hah. I seriously doubt it is even close to trivial. Especially when they are to exist on any device you use the service from.

cush 1y ago

>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"Have you used ChatGPT?" No Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Maybe some of those voters are ChatGPT users I do searching from the command line in text mode. The script I use keeps a "log" (a customised SERP) of all query strings and search result URLs. I also have these URLs stored in the logs from the forward proxy. These are compressed using RePair. I can search the compressed logs faster this way than with something like ztsd -dc log.zst|grep pattern or rg -z pattern log.zst
- buffington 1y ago
  > No Given that, I'd suggest not offering "alternatives" to the features described in TFA for a service you've never used. There are people here talking about oranges, a lot of them with domain expertise, and you're not just talking about apples, you're talking about bird migrations.
- fenomas 1y ago
  > Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Sure, and also downvotes - that measures factionalism, not correctness. But tech wise, you're confused. Functionally speaking chatgpt is a shared document editor - the server needs to store chat histories for the same reason Google Docs stores the content of documents. Users can submit text to chatgpt.com from one browser, and later edit that text from the app or a different browser. Ergo the text is stored on the server, simple as that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  Downvotes is a tiny faction 3 versus 190+, so far Many commenters cannot distinguish rhetorical questions from questions that seek an answer By attempting to answer a rhetorical question one may only strengthen the point being made by the question, for example, poor decision-making, and may reveal an absence self-awareness

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

If an analogy to the history of search engines can be made,^1 then we know that log retention policies in the US can change over time. The user has no control over such changes https://ide.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/w23815.pdf https://ide.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/w23815.pdf Companies operating popular www search engines might claim that the need for longer retention is "to provide better service" or some similar reason that focuses on users' interests rather than the company's interests^2 2. Generally, advertising services This paper attempts to expose such claims as bogus 1. According to some reports OpenAI is sending some queries to Google

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Amusingly, this discussion thread is filled with replies that attempt to "answer" the question of "why" OpenAI collects chat histories even when it must have known it would be sued for copyright infringment For users affected by OpenAI's conduct, an "answer" makes no difference. Anyone can construct any "answer" they want and we can see that in this thread. For users affected by OpenAI's conduct, it does not matter In the above paper on search engines, the claim was that longer retention of sensitive data leads to better search. This was the "answer" presented in response to the question of "why" But the "answer" is only misdirection. The companies have no reputation for being honest and their operations are non-transparent. Accordingly, user focus will be on the consequences for users of the company's practices, not "why" Some readers are probably too young to have read through the AOL search data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_log_release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_log_release Did anyone care "why" AOL released the data IMHO, it is unfortunate that papers like the one above need to published The question of "why" is rhetorical. It is meant to the draw attention to the consequences for users, not to seek an "answer"

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

News Plaintiffs October 15, 2025 Letter Motion to Compel https://ia801205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.940.0.pdf https://ia801205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... OpenAI October 30, 2025 Letter Opposing Motion to Compel https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.976.0.pdf https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... November 7, 2025 Order on Motion to Compel https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697/gov.uscourts.nysd.612697.987.0.pdf https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61... "OpenAI has failed to explain how its consumers privacy rights are not adequately protected by: (1) the existing protective order in this multidistrict litigation or (2) OpenAIs exhaustive de-identification of all of the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs.1 1. As News Plaintiffs point out, OpenAI has spent the last two and a half months processing and deidentifying this 20 million record sample. (ECF 719 at 1 n.1)."

tzs 1y ago

> The documents requested are not being made public by the plaintiffs In fact, as far as I understand it, they could not be made public by the plaintiffs even if they wanted to do so, or even if one of their employees decided to leak them. That's because the plaintiffs themselves never actually see the documents. They will only be seen by the plaintiff's lawyers and any experts hired by those lawyers to analyze them.

pkilgore 1y ago
You are correct. I've operated under many protective orders that require me to redact portions of reports clients paid for because they were not authorized to see those specific parts due to the order.

amypetrik8 1y ago

>Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") To train the AI further. Obviously. Simple as.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"Fighting the New York Times' lawyers' and experts' invasion of user privacy"

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Instead of asking, "What is the purpose of OpenAI storing milllions of private conversations" and having HN commenters (mis)interpret this as something other than a rhetorical question, one could ask, "What are the consequences for users of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations that users do not wish to save" HN replies might try to answer this as well but the answer is already known to the world The conversations will be made available to the plaintiffs' (including New York Times') attorneys and the plaintiffs' attorneys' experts If OpenAI did not store such conversations as a matter of practice before being sued, then there would be no private conversations to make available to the plaintiffs' attorneys and their experts 275 upvotes AFAICT, most HN readers did _not_ misintepret the question HN replies != HN, it is a small subset of the readership