4 ms·

>he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc. Where are you seeing that? He only says "We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claud

by AlanYx 25d ago

>he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc. Where are you seeing that? He only says "We used several LLMs throughout: Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s Codex, especially with GPT-5.6 Sol and, more recently, Astra. The latter was only used for writeups and auditing our arguments." I might be missing something, but he doesn't seem to confirm that he opted out, at least in the written writeup, maybe he has on social media? He also likely had early access to Astra given the timing, and I thought early access customers couldn't opt out? (Am I wrong about that?)

greggoB 25d ago
It's in this statement he released (linked in the article) [0]: "I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI." [0] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
- cma 25d ago
  API or consumer subscription? And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.
  - greggoB 25d ago
    > API or consumer subscription It's not given in the statement, so I don't know > And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? To this, the statement does have the following: "... the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack" Note his collaborator (Levent) works at Anthropic, so presumably he knows about opt ins/outs, etc. > I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too. I believe that, at this point in time, OpenAI's reputation speaks for itself. The stakes for success are already enormous, and the CEO has been repeatedly described by those around him as a pathological liar. People who choose to expose anything remotely sensitive can surely be expected to know the risks of doing so.

by AlanYx 25d ago

greggoB 25d ago

It's in this statement he released (linked in the article) [0]: "I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI." [0] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

cma 25d ago
API or consumer subscription? And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.
- greggoB 25d ago
  > API or consumer subscription It's not given in the statement, so I don't know > And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? To this, the statement does have the following: "... the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack" Note his collaborator (Levent) works at Anthropic, so presumably he knows about opt ins/outs, etc. > I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too. I believe that, at this point in time, OpenAI's reputation speaks for itself. The stakes for success are already enormous, and the CEO has been repeatedly described by those around him as a pathological liar. People who choose to expose anything remotely sensitive can surely be expected to know the risks of doing so.