2 ms·

So one model is "Not used to improve our products" and is 10-20 times more expensive to the "Used to improve our products"-model. Given this is Meta, my immedi

So one model is "Not used to improve our products" and is 10-20 times more expensive to the "Used to improve our products"-model. Given this is Meta, my immediate assumptions that one is cheap because it lets me "be the product". I know I'm rushing to conclusions but there is zero trust here. The brain will do its thing. And the wording here is giving the brains a lot of wiggle room.

whimsicalism 24d ago
the meaning is pretty obvious - they want to train on your chats & tasks and are willing to subsidize for the privilege of doing so.
thefreeman 24d ago
aren't they explicitly saying this with both their pricing and their wording? I'm not sure what you are alluding to?
bigyabai 24d ago
Given OpenAI and Anthropic's behavior, do you really expect them to be singled out for this practice? Zero trust has been in "LGTM" territory for years now. Meta's bet against people taking a principled stance arguably paid off great.
Jcampuzano2 24d ago
I'm confused what your surprise is here. It's plain and simple right to the point wording. I don't see the wiggle room at all.
duplessitous 24d ago
What is the confusion? They directly state that you are the product if you use their discounted offering. It isn't an assumption that should lead you to this, it is Meta's very direct communication that should lead you to this
IshKebab 24d ago
I think it's more that the "not used to improve our models" is expensive because companies need that. It's simple price differentiation. In other words, it's not that Meta really wants your data and they're willing to pay top dollar for it. It's that companies really don't want Meta to have their data and they're willing to pay top dollar for that.
zhoBEENG 24d ago
Would it help you understand if they were labelled "For Dumb Fucks" and "For Everyone Else"?
- K0balt 23d ago
  Which ones are the dumfuks? Because if what you’re doing is open source it’s going to be in the training data anyway.
warkdarrior 24d ago
Privacy is not free. They make it quite clear that they charge more if you don't want your data used by Meta.
r_lee 24d ago
they're doing the same thing as DeepSeek

whimsicalism 24d ago

the meaning is pretty obvious - they want to train on your chats & tasks and are willing to subsidize for the privilege of doing so.

thefreeman 24d ago

aren't they explicitly saying this with both their pricing and their wording? I'm not sure what you are alluding to?

bigyabai 24d ago

Given OpenAI and Anthropic's behavior, do you really expect them to be singled out for this practice? Zero trust has been in "LGTM" territory for years now. Meta's bet against people taking a principled stance arguably paid off great.

Jcampuzano2 24d ago

I'm confused what your surprise is here. It's plain and simple right to the point wording. I don't see the wiggle room at all.

duplessitous 24d ago

What is the confusion? They directly state that you are the product if you use their discounted offering. It isn't an assumption that should lead you to this, it is Meta's very direct communication that should lead you to this

IshKebab 24d ago

I think it's more that the "not used to improve our models" is expensive because companies need that. It's simple price differentiation. In other words, it's not that Meta really wants your data and they're willing to pay top dollar for it. It's that companies really don't want Meta to have their data and they're willing to pay top dollar for that.

zhoBEENG 24d ago

Would it help you understand if they were labelled "For Dumb Fucks" and "For Everyone Else"?

K0balt 23d ago
Which ones are the dumfuks? Because if what you’re doing is open source it’s going to be in the training data anyway.

warkdarrior 24d ago

Privacy is not free. They make it quite clear that they charge more if you don't want your data used by Meta.

r_lee 24d ago

they're doing the same thing as DeepSeek