Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#121

Post by revelio »

thefz wrote: post #94
revelio wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about a website you have to specifically visit and type your personal information in to, which doesn't even ask for your name and which is simultaneously being accused of not knowing enough about you (your age). There is no "protection" needed here. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I don't use it. Read the ruling. They are specifically referring to the data leak of some days ago that revealed personal information of GPT users that 1) was not explicitly collected and 2) was available to subjects that should not handle it (other users).

Then the Italian authorities will be pleased to know that the bug is already fixed, and thus there's nothing for them to do. Unless GDPR is now being interpreted as a general obligation to never write bugs, in which case, they will have plenty to do going after European firms because it's not like there's a shortage of buggy software in the world.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#122

Post by wsgeorge »

revelio wrote: post #88
thefz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am actually very happy about this. If you like to have no protection over how big corporate treats your data as your own, and ingests whatever whenever they need to profit off your personal information, be my guest. But I am happy to have a watchdog over my basic human rights. > However, I often sense that in many places, the country seems to be entrenched in its medieval past. It might be. But not on this front.

You're talking about a website you have to specifically visit and type your personal information in to, which doesn't even ask for your name and which is simultaneously being accused of not knowing enough about you (your age). There is no "protection" needed here. If you don't like it, don't use it.

> which doesn't even ask for your name

Nitpick: It asks for your name, email and phone number before you get to use it. Not to detract from your larger point, but people have expressed disappointment about the phone number part.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#123

Post by patrakov »

lm28469 wrote: post #65
sarusso wrote: post #10

I really don't get this kind of bans. When I connect to a service in the US, my bits are traveling there. Italy "banning" ChatGPT (whatever it means) is like preventing me from getting high in Amsterdam because, as an Italian citizen, I should not be allowed to.. Never got it, and never will.

Have you actually read the article ? A country can ban a service when it doesn't follow its laws, there isn't anything crazy about it It's more like not allowing you to smoke weed you bought in Amsterdam if you already came back to Italy Something being legal somewhere doesn't mean it's legal everywhere > When I connect to a service in the US, my bits are traveling there Well yeah, that's like exactly the issue they'…

It _is_ crazy, because of unknown collateral damage, especially due to proxies, CDNs, and inability of most ISPs to filter using anything except IP addresses. You know, large-scale DPI is for non-democratic countries only.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#125

Post by SanderNL »

'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."'

So do (certain) books.

That's another issue right? If you let your minor access stuff, they.. access stuff. Hard to control? I know and it is. How is this specific to OpenAI?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#126

Post by sharken »

SanderNL wrote: post #75
weberer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not banning it just because its AI. They're banning it because it sends sensitive data to Microsoft without the user's consent.

The user is doing it. They are literally typing it. They are consenting to this. We don't need "watchdogs" "protecting" us from stuff we want to do ourselves.

This is a very sensible take that i fully support, too bad the Italians do not, it's their loss.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#128

Post by drstewart »

gumballindie wrote: post #35
dsabanin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put it out in the open – someone might read it. If they read it – they may remember it and retell it later or use it in their works. That someone may or may not be a human person. If you want to get paid for the work – don't put it out in the open.

Yes, and that's by mutual agreement. I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic. That doesn't mean open ai, a company building a product, has the right to use my work word by word to train their model without my constent and then monetise it - that's theft. Where's the option to remove my content or to stop open ai from using it?

> I allow you to read my content in exchange for money or traffic.

Hold on, when did I consent to you monetizing my traffic? I just want to read your content. Pay me a share of the money and then we'll see if I want to allow you to use my traffic to make money.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#129

Post by modernpink »

oriettaxx wrote: post #2

[Google Translation] Artificial Intelligence: The Guarantor blocks ChatGPT Illegal collection of personal data. Absence of systems for verifying the age of minors Stop ChatGPT until it respects the privacy regulation. The Guarantor for the protection of personal data has ordered, with immediate effect, the temporary limitation of the processing of data of Italian users against OpenAI, the US company that developed an…

Ironically the GPT4 translation is better

>Both translations effectively convey the main points and ideas of the original Italian text. However, the translation I provided seems to be more fluent and coherent, using more natural English phrasing and terminology. For example, "the Guarantor for the protection of personal data" is translated as "the Italian Data Protection Authority," which is more common and clearer in English.

>While Google's translation is generally accurate, it has a few awkward phrases or word choices that make it slightly less clear or idiomatic, such as "the best known of the relational artificial intelligence software" instead of "the most well-known relational artificial intelligence software."

>Overall, the translation I provided is more polished and reads more smoothly in English, which may be preferred for better understanding and clarity.

>Taking into account accuracy, fluency, and clarity, I would rate the translations as follows:

>My translation (ChatGPT): 95/100

>- The translation is accurate, fluent, and clear. It effectively conveys the original text's meaning and reads smoothly in English. The phrasing and terminology used are natural and idiomatic.

>Google's translation: 85/100

>- The translation is mostly accurate, but there are some instances of awkward phrasing or word choice. Some sentences may not read as smoothly or clearly as they could in English. Despite these issues, the overall meaning is still conveyed. Please note that these ratings are subjective and may vary depending on individual preferences and interpretation.

Post reply on HN