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

701–709 of 709 posts

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#701

Post by konschubert »

martin_a wrote: post #53
ithkuil wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By indexing and training on everything it can find in the internet?! and that's bad because? I would see the point if they were training on my private data I entrusted to somebody and they illegally obtained it without my permission. Are they doing that?

See my edit: They will ignore licensing information and train on data, possible privacy related information too, without any respect. See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32573523

What kind of "privacy related information"? This is data on the open internet!

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#702

Post by konschubert »

jprete wrote: post #28
favsq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does ChatGPT behave like they own the world?

They use every bit of data they can find without regard to the rights of the authors, publishers, or subjects of the data?

How is this the business of a PRIVACY watchdog?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#703

Post by lelanthran »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #371
tablespoon wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'exposes "minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to the their degree of development and self-awareness."' > So do (certain) books. Minors are typically given books that are appropriate to "their degree of development and self-awareness."

I see you haven't been to a Sunday school or bible study group. Rape, incest, murder, maiming, slaughter, torture...

> I see you haven't been to a Sunday school or bible study group

Neither have you - those things are omitted in Sunday school.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#704

Post by rafark »

mk89 wrote: post #700
rafark wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not Italian but if it’s a regulator that tells what you can or cannot do, then it’s government.

It's not necessarily true. The current president of garante of privacy was chosen in 2020, while the current government has been running for less than a year.

I mean conceptually. If they can tell you what you can or cannot do, they’re government because they’re literally governing you.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#705

Post by Bost »

mk89 wrote: post #687
hankchinaski wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's an opportunity for an Italian company to create a model and grow in this window of opportunity. Italy has great engineers nobody is going to invest a dime in a country where regulators and government are against anything that is "new". it's just not a place for new business or tech overall. it's a very hostile environment to be operating in

There is "new" and "new from another country, and we don't want that s*it here until we know what it is". This is not the reason why companies don't invest in Italy.

"We don't want that s*it here" reminds of being behind the Iron Curtain for ~40 years. And than the dam broke...

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#706

Post by im3w1l »

lxgr wrote: post #696
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose they could communicate through the app which was used to order the food and/or using whatsapp.

Some people still order by calling a regular phone number, and I don‘t think forcing more centralization in the industry is a good solution. The industry stakeholders and FCC should get together and fix caller ID authentication; the rest will follow from there.

Allowing inbounds call from numbers with a recent outbound call sounds like a low-hanging fruit heuristic.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#707

Post by SiempreViernes »

hollowturtle wrote: post #571
SiempreViernes wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: just remove that user's data from the training set, throw out the existing model and train from scratch on the modified training set. As for the more interesting question if you can modify an existing model in a simple way: probably not. But you might get away with just dropping any response containing snippets of the contribution to be expunged, and that is hopefully good enough for the regulator.

geez training from scratch costs a lot of money! Let alone being able to contact all the authors of the content the model was trained on, infeasible for me

Convincing people to pay for your product isn't free either, but them's the breaks if you want to do legal business.

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#708

Post by mftrhu »

mike_hearn wrote: post #642
mftrhu wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it the same? Is it because both sentences contain the word "claim" in them, do you disagree about the Garante acting to enforce an EU directive, or what?

I mean that China justifies their firewall by saying it's for the protection of their citizens, which is the same justification given here for Italy wanting to block ChatGPT. If you're saying that Italy is truthful about their reasoning but China isn't, what sort of process is being used to determine that?

> If you're saying that Italy is truthful about their reasoning but China isn't, what sort of process is being used to determine that?

I don't know. What sort of reasoning lead to your initial claim?

Re: Italian privacy regulator bans ChatGPT

#709

Post by mk89 »

Bost wrote: post #705
mk89 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is "new" and "new from another country, and we don't want that s*it here until we know what it is". This is not the reason why companies don't invest in Italy.

"We don't want that s*it here" reminds of being behind the Iron Curtain for ~40 years. And than the dam broke...

Isn't this what's happening a bit everywhere...?
Post reply on HN