This is laughable
Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
11–20 of 441 posts
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#12> Trust, security, and privacy guide every product and decision we make. -- openai
You know you have a branding problem when (1) you have to say that at the outset, and (2) it induces more eyerolls than a gaggle of golf dads.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#13I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't.
But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product.
In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm, so they have to trawl through private conversations OpenAI's customers have had with their service to see if they can find any.
It's quite literally a fishing expedition.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#14Man, maybe I'm getting old and jaded, but it's not often that I read a post that literally makes my skin crawl.
This is so transparently icky. "Oh woe is us! We're being sued and we're looking out for YOU the user, who is definitely not the product. We are just a 'lil 'ol (near) trillion-dollar business trying to protect you!"
Come ON.
Look I don't actually know who's in the right in the OAI vs. NYT dispute, and frankly I personally lean more toward the side the says that you are allowed to train models on the world's information as long as you consume it legally and don't violate copyright.
But this transparent attempt to get user sympathy under insanely disingenuous pretenses is just absurd.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#15> Trust, security, and privacy guide every product and decision we make. -- openai
[deleted]
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#16I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…
Yeah, everyone else in the comments so far is acting emotionally, but --
As a fan and DAU of both OpenAI and the NYT, this is just a weird discovery demand and there should be another pathway for these two to move fwd in this case (NYT to get some semblance of understanding, OAI protecting end-user privacy).
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#17This screams just as genuine as Google saying anything about Privacy.
Both companies are clearly wrong here. There is a small part of me that kinda wants openai to loose this, just so maybe it will be a wake up call to people putting in way too personal of information into these services? Am I too hopeful here that people will learn anything...
Fundamentally I agree with what they are saying though, just don't find it genuine in the slightest coming from them.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#18Says the people who scraped as much private information as they could get their hands on to train their bots in the first place.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#19> Trust, security, and privacy guide every product and decision we make. -- openai
- any corporation
remember a corporation generally is an object owned by some people. Do you trust "unspecified future group of people" with your privacy? You can't. Best we can do is understand the information architecture and act accordingly.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#20This is the basic discovery process when OpenAI commits IP theft. They're trying to misinform the public of how justice process works.
> To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The constitution is clear that the purpose of intellectual property is to promote progress. I feel that OpenAI is on the right side of that and this is not IP theft as long as they aren't reproducing others work in a non-transformative way.
Training the AI is clearly transformative (and lossy to boot). Giving the AI the ability to scrape and paraphrase others work is less clear and both sides each have valid arguments. I don't envy the judges that must make that call.