221–230 of 235 posts
To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
They literally show you a full-page popup with clear text snd OPT IN toggle. It doesn’t seem really shady to me (or worth 10 separate posts on HN).
That said, if this popup doesn’t appear when you sign up after 28th, that would be a dark pattern and shady stuff. For now it’s just clickbait
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people would say that since the owner isn't being deprived of anything, it's not stealing.
Let's say that I use LLM to develop novel software called X. Then my work is used to train the model. Then somebody uses the model to recreate a copy of the of the software X by prompt "create software that works just like X". My novel software is no longer unique. So how come I have not been deprived of anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> using his own copy of the data Yes? That is a different thing? I guess we can keep moving the topic until we're talking about the same topic if you want. But honestly, I don't want to have that kind of conversation.
It doesn’t seem like anyone is moving topics here. Where do you see the topic being moved?
My entire comment was that the entire issue is about data ownership. Doesn't even matter if you have a copy of the data.
It matters how that copy was obtained.
There's no reason to then discuss if your usage violates the terms of a license if you obtained the data illegally. You're already in the illegal territory lol.
Having data != legally having obtained data
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it a different thing? Are we talking about copyright law, or not?
Before you were talking about data you don't own on hardware you do. Now you're talking about data you do own. The whole thing is about who owns the data!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, they’re not assuming anything is “being shared”. They’re assuming that Anthropic that is already receiving and storing your data, is also training their models on that data. How are you supposed to disprove that as a user? Also, the whole point is that companies cannot be trusted to follow the settings.
Why can't companies be trusted to follow the settings? If they add those settings why would you expect they wouldn't respect them? Do you think they're purely cosmetic features that don't actually do anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you were talking about data you don't own on hardware you do. Now you're talking about data you do own. The whole thing is about who owns the data!
I can imagine that it would indeed be confusing if you failed to distinguish between ownership of the data and ownership of the copyright.
>>...> To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
>...> "Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" constitutes stealing now?
So yeah, I think you're doing gymnastics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't companies be trusted to follow the settings? If they add those settings why would you expect they wouldn't respect them? Do you think they're purely cosmetic features that don't actually do anything?
Have you really never heard of companies saying one thing while doing another?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI, Meta and X all train from user submitted data, in Meta and X’s case data that had been submitted long before the advent of LLMs. It’s not a leap to assume Anthropic does the same.
By X do you mean tweets? Can you not see how different that is from training on your private conversations with an LLM? What if you ask it for medical advice, or legal things? What if you turn on Gmail integration? Should I now be able to generate your conversations with the right prompt?
xAI trains Grok on both public data (Tweets) and non-public data (Conversations with Grok) by default. [0]
> Grok.com Data Controls for Training Grok: For the Grok.com website, you can go to Settings, Data, and then “Improve the Model” to select whether your content is used for model training.
Meta trains its AI on things posted to Meta's products, which are not as "public" as Tweets on X, because users expect these to be shared only with their networks. They do not use DMs, but they do use posts to Instagram/Facebook/etc. [1]
> We use information that is publicly available online and licensed information. We also use information shared on Meta Products. This information could be things like posts or photos and their captions. We do not use the content of your private messages with friends and family to train our AIs unless you or someone in the chat chooses to share those messages with our AIs.
OpenAI uses conversations for training data by default [2]
> When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT, Codex, and Sora, we may use your content to train our models.
> You can opt out of training through our privacy portal by clicking on “do not train on my content.” To turn off training for your ChatGPT conversations and Codex tasks, follow the instructions in our Data Controls FAQ. Once you opt out, new conversations will not be used to train our models.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/privacy/genai/
[2] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-data-is...
I don't know what they've been training on but I just canceled claude for the second time. Besides the numerous UI bugs of the web interface, incessant flickerings, it has gotten weirdly super condescending and negative in a way I hadn't observed neither in the past nor with other llms. Probably that people accused it of being sycophantic and they have tried to adjust it but they didn't do it well. It'd rather critic…
If you don't like Claude's personallity, ask him to behave differently. It's common for me to periodically say 'don't be so sycophantic' and 'be more critical' when working on technical projects. In your case, try saying 'be nicer' or 'be more jovial'.