4 ms·

The burden of proof is on Buckmaster and Alpöge to reveal if they had the "Improve the model for everyone" setting enabled or disabled. OpenAI shouldn't be expe

The burden of proof is on Buckmaster and Alpöge to reveal if they had the "Improve the model for everyone" setting enabled or disabled. OpenAI shouldn't be expected to reveal private user configuration data. You're asking them to perform a user privacy violation.

whimsicalism 18d ago
If the reason that OpenAI is unable to state whether they trained on this data is because they (as policy) do not reveal whether a given member has turned on/off the "Improve the model for everyone" setting, they can at least say so. FWIW, publicly facing OAI docs are very unclear about whether this setting even applies to Codex conversations.
- tristanj 17d ago
  An OpenAI employee did say so: https://x.com/tszzl/status/2097393423808377173 https://x.com/tszzl/status/2097393423808377173 it is exceptionally unlikely that anything they ever did made it into any part of training, and the chances are zero if they have opted out (likely). it would be a terrible precedent to break the the PII-scrubbing boundary to go and round it down to 0, and we won’t do it
  - amazingman 17d ago
    And we all know how good OpenAI is at containing models during training...
    - unsupp0rted 17d ago
      That's an entirely different question
      - ted_dunning 17d ago
        Not really. We have lots of examples now of their model doing what they say is impossible. Now we have another example of something that they say is impossible or very unlikely. Do we take their word for it this time? Really?