5 ms·
[flagged]
by theplumber 3mo ago
[flagged]
- zyngaro 3mo agoThe reason why the models are getting better is training on users conversations.
- nikcub 3mo ago> I pretty sure OpenAI and Anthropic are doing the same or worse. No they're not. It would end both companies if they were ever found to be doing that. Their terms are clear - if you use the coding plans they can[0] train in return. Enterprise and API, absolutely not. The argument here is that with the Chinese labs you have zero legal recourse. [0] opt-in, thanks
- mahkeiro 3mo agoAre we talking about the company sending back private information through its client to « fight » model distillation?
- theshrike79 3mo agoYes. Enterprise contracts are checked and agreed by lawyers. The contract states no training. If the provider fucks up, there are actual monetary damages defined for breach of contract.
- fluoridation 3mo agoIt's an unenforceable clause. The affected party has no means to prove that a breach has happened.
- fzysingularity 3mo agoI think we all ought to look at the ZDR fine-print here. I get that in principle that there's no retention, but these are powerful models that can comprehend, paraphrase and summarize your logs for the sake of "product" improvement. Who knows what's collected here.
- oceanplexian 3mo ago> It's an unenforceable clause. The affected party has no means to prove that a breach has happened. Big tech spends hundreds of millions in high powered lawyers, audit logs, and contractual agreements with the sole purpose of proving your point wrong.
- fluoridation 3mo agoCool. And have they?
- victor106 3mo agoI would think they are not but Alex Karp CEO of Palantir seems to imply that they are: https://youtu.be/0A3sGymV6kY?si=ti7uSZtYqJ3vKpGM https://youtu.be/0A3sGymV6kY?si=ti7uSZtYqJ3vKpGM I found it a little shocking TBH
- muglug 3mo agoAlex Karp says a lot of things
- theplumber 3mo ago>> No they're not. It would end both companies if they were ever found to be doing that. Their terms are clear - The argument here is that with the Chinese labs you have zero legal recourse. Their terms are not worth shit considering they are reselling you stolen copyrighted data. Even in they terms they started clearly say they retain your data for "safety reasons" for however long they want. Perhaps you didn't watch the space with Anthropic going back and forth with ToS updates(we retain your data for 30 days...stike that and add 30 days or more or no or ..whatever) like my own alpha website.
- demosthanos 3mo agoThere is an enormous difference between: * Exploiting ambiguity around fair use at a large scale before the law catches up and then jointly lobbying with your competition to make sure your interpretation of the law becomes reality. * Explicitly signing a contract with enterprises to respect their IP and then proceeding to break that contract with your own customers. The former is firmly in the gray area of legality and doesn't directly hurt your own customers. The latter is both an unambiguous contract violation and a flagrant attack on your own customers' most valuable asset.
- nclin_ 3mo agoretention for 'safety' -> AI race as national security -> training on your data for 'national security' aka safety It's simple mental calisthenics. If you are handing an organization whose entire business model is built on stealing data with spurious reasoning, what do you actually expect they will do? Don't be a fool.
- demosthanos 3mo agoI'd like to see you try using mental calisthenics against a well-funded legal department. Let me know what the judge says.
- avianlyric 3mo agoThis argument would hold more weight if Anthropic and OpenAI main customers weren’t massive trillion dollar companies with legal teams capable of burying just about anyone, anywhere, for even the mildest contract violation. Something that OpenAI is getting some close up experience with at the moment.
- TurdF3rguson 3mo ago> if you use the coding plans they train in return. No, you have to opt-in to that. There's a privacy toggle on account settings.
- tripplyons 3mo agoFor OpenAI, you have to use the Enterprise plan at API pricing in order for them not to train on your data. Source: https://chatgpt.com/codex/pricing/?type=team https://chatgpt.com/codex/pricing/?type=team
- TurdF3rguson 3mo agoYes, my comment only applies to Claude - I have no knowledge of OpenAI policy.
- edot 3mo agoNot true. You can turn off training in settings on an individual plan.
- hedora 3mo agoAnthropic constantly uses dark patterns to steal training data from customers (like the “how is claude doing” spam, data retention loosening when the safeguards false positive, etc).
- TurdF3rguson 3mo agoHow is that a dark pattern? What is the light pattern for getting feedback from users?
- buzer 3mo agoThere are multiple ways to use feedback. Personally I would often be fine with actual human reading my feedback, taking in account the points I made and evaluating how it should affect their feature development and future roadmap. Now what I would expect AI companies to do is to take things which were submitted as feedback and pretty much adding to training: "Do more of this: <copy of the whole response which was flagged as good in feedback>" "Do less of this: <copy of the whole response which was flagged as bad in feedback>" It's paraphrased, but the point is that they will most likely use it more-or-less as-is and thus whatever is in there will be part of the model's training set rather than someone picking up the parts from response that are important and only including them (which happens with traditional feedback).
- dannyw 3mo agoIf you have a naive loop like this you will quickly poison your dataset with e.g. thumbs downs because someone is unhappy with the latest frontend update, or teach models to not correctly refuse. I’m sure the pipeline is more sophisticated and in the middle.
- buzer 3mo agoSure, but the point is more that once you submit feedback then the usual "opt out of using my data for training" no longer apply and at least that reply (and possibly whole conversation) can be included in training set in one way or another.
- dwa3592 3mo agolmao, wasn't xAI caught doing this recently? moreover at least moonshot is being honest about it.
- doctorpangloss 3mo agothey train on your requests by paraphrasing them (which means rewriting them but keeping all the saliency) and removing their association with you i don't know why this is so controversial, their terms are written to perfectly fit this training regime. one of you downvoters i'm sure has an enterprise contract with them, just ask. if you are using bedrock, until very recently, they didn't see your requests and could not paraphrase. but too many people were using bedrock for too much stuff they wanted to see. so that's why the terms for bedrock changed for fable 5. this was the core of the palantir / defense dept drama with anthropic.
- richardfey 3mo agoThey could use an agent to summarise the source material, and then train models on those summaries, and claim that some sort of clean-room training has happened?
- rapfaria 3mo agoYou've been to too many meetings with PMs and directors saying "An agent could very easily do this"
- richardfey 3mo agoI understand you're trying to be funny, but my point is that with novel technology there are novel ways to claim innocence in courts because of the legislative void.
- mannanj 3mo agoI think the risk of not doing is more existential than doing so and getting caught. Wouldn’t you agree? Edit: And the point of the poster is they have already demonstrated a track record of lying and misconduct, so how can you trust their word now? What have they done to show you they have taken responsibility for past actions and changed?
- _jackdk_ 3mo agoHow much do we trust those guarantees? Apple currently alleges that OpenAI employees have been stealing Apple's trade secrets: https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/10/apple-sues-openai-trade-secret-theft/ https://9to5mac.com/2026/07/10/apple-sues-openai-trade-secre... > [Mr. Tan] has directed job candidates still working for Apple to bring “Actual parts” from Apple to their interviews for “show and tell” sessions in which he and his team at OpenAI can elicit still more Apple confidential information. > As part of its investigation, Apple found a “pattern by employees who depart for OpenAI of taking steps to evade the security processes intended to protect Apple’s confidential information.” > Apple also claims former engineer Liu exploited a security bug to download confidential engineering files after leaving the company. Rather than report the exploit, Liu allegedly joked about it in messages (“LOL,” “so funny”). Liu also failed to return an Apple-issued laptop after his departure. This seems pretty close to "they trust me, dumb fucks" behaviour.
- bastardoperator 3mo agoMaybe Apple lawyers can figure this out in discovery.
- b3ing 3mo agoIf you are a regular user they could care less,if you are enterprise they might be more careful. They have credit card info, and all your chats so I’m sure they can figure things out
- ricardobeat 3mo agoHow would you explain how they built https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal https://github.com/anthropics/claude-for-legal then? > ... for the legal workflows we see most see.. where?
- anemonetree 3mo ago[dead]
- sailingparrot 3mo agoclaude.com / chatgpt.com. By default your chats over there are opt-in for "help improve our models". Not the API. Terms for the app: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023580-is-my-data-used-for-model-training https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023580-is-my-data-u... The API: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996868-is-my-data-used-for-model-training https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/7996868-is-my-data-us...
- blazespin 3mo agoAre there terms clear? I dunno. There are ways to train on API usage without training on API usage.
- girvo 3mo agoIf that was completely the whole story, then the extra Zero Retention etc tier enterprise things wouldn’t exist I also don’t trust them lol
- c0rruptbytes 3mo agomy experience right now with fable via bedrock is they collect data, 5.6 has the option for ZDR at least
- ceroxylon 3mo agoAnthropic (and probably OpenAI) can technically flag anything for 'safety' and view it, I'm not trying to imply that they are doing it arbitrarily, but they do have a way to do it within the ToS as far as I understand (happy to be proven wrong).
- enraged_camel 3mo ago>> I pretty sure OpenAI and Anthropic are doing the same or worse. So in your opinion, they are training on your data even if you toggle the "don't train on my data" checkbox off? That's a bold assertion.
- inigyou 3mo agoWhy wouldn't they?
- ghshephard 3mo agoBecause the value obtained from doing so is unlikely to exceed the cost of the lawsuits if they were ever caught doing so.
- gpm 3mo agoBecause the legal system does, in fact, have teeth. And those teeth actually deploy pretty readily. Especially when the people whose trade secrets you would be violating are gargantuan companies with enough resources that the cost of a lawsuit is a rounding error.
- theplumber 3mo agono it doesn't. If it would have teeth they would not resell copyright data. They will be busted like Kim DotCom
- gpm 3mo agoNo AI company has been reselling copyright data to my knowledge, it would be truly bizarre if they did that. What they have been doing, with some narrow exceptions where they have lost billions of dollars in court cases*, is not at all obviously prohibited by copyright law. Neither web scraping (i.e. asking for copies of data from people you have every reason to believe are authorized to give you copies) or running algorithms on copyrighted data are generally copyright infringment. I say generally because the "algorithm" of "ctrl-c ctrl-v" is obviously an exception, and there's some argument that training is similar enough to be illegal - a fairly weak argument that is mostly losing in court but has some tiny chance of still succeeding. The law doesn't have teeth to prohibit things not prohibited under the law - no matter how much many people would like them to be prohibited. This shouldn't be surprising. Unlike with copyright, the law does pretty clearly prohibit violating contractual terms to not hang onto or use other peoples data for purposes other than the narrow ones laid out in the contract when you agreed to the contract. * Namely acquiring copies of data from people who they know aren't authorized to make copies - i.e. torrenting.
- demosthanos 3mo agoThere is a world of difference between: * A company following suit with their entire industry in choosing a very generous definition of fair use. * A company being the first to defect and actually break their signed contracts with enormous enterprises committing to not train on those enterprises' most valuable assets. Training on copyrighted works signs them up to be a part of a system that is at this point too big to fail and places them in good company with all of their competition. Breaking their signed agreements would open them up to very well-founded and well-funded lawsuits for contract violation and give their competition a huge boost. All of a sudden "we actually don't break our contracts" would be a selling point. No company in their right mind is going to let what should be table stakes become a differentiator for their competition.
- tedsanders 3mo agoI work at OpenAI and I can assure you that if we say we don't train on your data, we don't. I acknowledge that if you don't trust OpenAI, then you may not trust me either. But lying about this would be bad for legal liability, customer retention, and employee retention. Even if you model us as evil (and we really aren't), it's still not obvious to me that it would be a good decision to lie. As soon as a whistleblower revealed the scam, it would tank revenue and employee morale.