4 ms·
Based on their behavior over the past few years, why would you assume that checkbox even does anything at all?
by sunaurus 24d ago
Based on their behavior over the past few years, why would you assume that checkbox even does anything at all?
- ALLTaken 24d agoLevent Alpöge 'additionally' proved OpenAI steals your findings & IP and plays dirty! Ironically he proved two major findings in Navier Strokes and that unethical American companies violate laws, steal your breakthrough findings & IP and then threaten you if you dare to challenge them. This is making the status-quo so bad for any of us working on serious capacity. My client's don't trust ChatGPT/Claude anymore and prefer on-premises and OSS models or even custom trained models.
- deleted 24d ago[deleted]
- lxgr 24d agoDid they do so by looking at inference prompts against their explicit promises, or maybe just because somebody tipped them off about his unpublished work? If it's not the former, while certainly concerning, I don't see how that's relevant here (other than maybe in a very vague general sense of "entities doing immoral/illegal thing X are likely to also do immoral/illegal thing Y").
- innocent_name 24d agoI do trust Anthropic, i haven't observed them doing super shady stuff like hiding the training consent page and making you WAIT for it to activate.
- Insanity 24d agoYou really shouldn't trust any company. Their goal is maximizing profit and that is (usually) not aligned with "doing what's right". Not in the long-term at least.
- skinfaxi 24d agoWe really need a new Hanlon's razor for companies. Assume malice over ignorance because groups behave differently than individuals.
- dpz 24d agoI mean weren't everyones privately shared chats Google searchable?
- innocent_name 24d agoUser doesn't understand how public links indexing works.
- faangguyindia 24d agoYou mean the company which trained on others books, won't train on its own user generated data?
- innocent_name 24d agoAFAIK, the court held that the problem was that they had acquired books by pirating them, not that they trained an AI on those books. They do train on user generated data by default, but you can opt out, that's the whole point.
- innocent_name 24d agoLet's not down vote a factually correct comment that makes you emotionally disagree with me. I'm very concerned in regards to my privacy, I've studied ToS of: Openrouter, Anthropic, Anthropic business, opencode Go etc. I've double checked my understandings by GDPR exporting all my data. Anthropic sub listed a generic "logged in from Linux", "UA", "timestamp", "Country". That's it. I want to discuss actual facts, observations and not your shallow social signaling replies of 0 value.
- egillie 24d agoah a proof by counterexample
- ghostly_s 24d agoI take it you are referring to this[1], which has nothing to do with training. 1. https://thenextweb.com/news/bubeck-navier-stokes-account-apology-altman https://thenextweb.com/news/bubeck-navier-stokes-account-apo...
- aenis 24d agoThere is nothing even close to a proof. A lot of accusations, a lot of people ready with pitchforks and torches (sadly, also here on HN), but not a lot of facts. Did the researches opt out from data sharing on subsidised subs? Did anyone prove that their methods enabled OpenAI models to produce the solution? For a discussion about science, there is almost no scientifical method applied to proving anyone stole anything.
- ball_of_lint 24d agoOn one side, yes we don't have hard evidence that intentional plagiarism is exactly what happened. On the other side, the lack of evidence is pretty damning. Only OpenAI can try to prove that they came by these results legitimately, and the case they're making is quite weak. They could make public metadata about what their model was trained on and whether it did train on the conversations in question; they have not. TBQH I read it as even they don't know. And regardless of whether the result is legitimately obtained by their model, they've not at all conducted themselves well throughout this story. They set out to scoop researchers based on a rumor. They threatened to ruin a mathematicians career. They put up a paper that deliberately doesn't cite the most relevant research, despite building directly on it. No matter how you look at it, OpenAI has and should lose any standing they had in the research community.
- keeda 24d agoActually no, the lack of evidence can be readily fixed by the researchers simply disclosing the pertinent parts of their notes and/or chats. The discovery has been scooped, so I don't see any value in keeping them private anymore. Then everybody can see how related the models' and the researchers' works are.
- aenis 24d agoThat it was a dick move, I think there is no doubt about that. OpenAI wanted to scoop Anthropic, and the two guys working on the problem got caught in the crossfire. Both OpenAI and the researchers know if the sessions in questions were subject to data sharing. Why neither the scientists nor OpenAI is clear about that is weird - it would seem at least one party has the incentive to report that. But even if their sessions were in training data sets its hard to tell whether it influenced the outcome. Those models are big, but are they big enough to preserve subtle, niche techniques enough to draw from them while solving a related problem? Probably nobody knows.
- dgellow 24d agoThe vast majority of OpenAI users don’t follow the industry drama and have no idea how terrible the company is. They’ve been really good at getting good press coverage, with journalists who will repeat the company narrative. Even when critical it is very often framed within the narrative they established
- spongebobstoes 24d agowhat makes the company so terrible?
- riffic 24d agoSo, the way this orange site works is that if anyone makes a reference to whatever sort of inside baseball concern ("industry drama"), we're all supposed to know what they're talking about.
- Centigonal 24d agoIDK about "terrible," but: - OpenAI is the first AI lab to pioneer ads in consumer AI - Anthropic seemingly exists primarily because top OpenAI researchers lost faith in the company's commitment to AI safety - They had the CEO drama in 2023, with evidence that suggests people in a position to know were doubtful of Sam Altman's honesty and motives - They were tripping over themselves to kiss the ring after Anthropic got in a row with the Department of War over using AI for autonomous killing systems and surveillance of US citizens - Altman's record (YC, Loopt, WorldCoin) and associates suggests he subscribes to the Paypal-Facebook "move fast, break things, find and exploit gray areas" school of company building All of this suggests that OpenAI will optimize its own growth and power over consumer welfare or societal stability in the future (obviously, companies aren't a monolith and I'd love to be wrong).
- chris_va 24d agoDon't forget the not-actually-Open-no-longer-a-non-profit history
- deleted 24d ago
- altmanaltman 24d agoWhile that is true, you also have no reason to assume OP is being truthful or correct here given that they have shown 0 proof of what they're saying. Yes, you can then pile on "OF COURSE ITS OPENAI LOL YOU THINK THEY CARE ABOUT PRIVACY LOL" but where have we established OP's premise is even correct? Can anyone else also report this? So is it just OpenAI specifically messing with OP?
- stavros 24d agoIf it didn't do anything, they wouldn't keep re-enabling it.
- keeda 24d agoDid you encounter it too? (Trying to get a rough estimate of how many people are reporting it vs how many people aren't.)
- stavros 24d agoNo, mine stays disabled and there's no way to enable it. It's just a label that says "disabled". Not sure why, maybe some sort of company wide profile?
- onel 24d agoThis kind of cynicism is not really useful. As much as we can distrust the company, there is a legal minefield to offer this option in the UI and terms of service and not respect it.