3 ms·
This form is legally binding and has more legal weight than just clicking a toggle. If they still train on my data, they can get sued, and I'll get a payout.
by tristanj 24d ago
This form is legally binding and has more legal weight than just clicking a toggle. If they still train on my data, they can get sued, and I'll get a payout.
- moljac024 24d agoHow would you prove they trained on your data specifically?
- Ancapistani 24d agoShowing that a novel mathematical approach was in your prompts shortly before the model “proposes” that approach to relative amateurs would be ideal, if only we had a case like that…
- itemize123 24d agoand still they denied it - it only shows that we have little recourse.
- Ancapistani 24d agoIt’s possible that they didn’t train on it, and the approach was derived by the LLM. What’s a problem is that they haven’t outright denied it. That could be caution and them doing their due diligence first, it could be that it was intentional and they didn’t expect to get caught, or it could be because they have no way of knowing themselves.
- vuurmot 24d agoFighting legally against one of the richest companies in existence, with the entire American apparatus behind it, is a brave move
- bot403 24d agoThe world is pretty pissed at the u.s. and seeking sovereign models and ai. Richest or not if the companies are wise they will try a bit not to piss off the entire rest of the world. At this point many countries are willing to cut off the u.s. even if they take a short or medium term hit.
- 63stack 24d agoAre there any precedents that companies got sued on this? Not that I doubt you, but it would be nice to see if it actually has teeth or not.
- m4rtink 24d agoAs legaly binding as all the data the license and ToS of which they ignored when scrapping - before trying to sell it back with an eternal subscription to their plagiarism machine ?