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

Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 441 posts

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#41

Post by Forgeties79 »

stevarino wrote: post #27
nerdjon wrote: post #17

This 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 i…

Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challengi…

>your data belongs to you

…”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!”

Edit: honestly I’m surprised I left out the bit where they just indiscriminately scraped everything they could online to train these models. The stones to go “your data belongs to you” as they clearly feel entitled to our data is unbelievably absurd

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#42

Post by greyman »

jcranmer wrote: post #6

"How dare the New York Times demand access to our vault of everything-we-keep to figure out if we're a bunch of lying asses. We must resist them in the name of user privacy! Signed, the people who have scraped literally everything to incorporate it into the products we make." OpenAI may be trying to paint themselves as the goody-two-shoes here, but they're not.

But that vault can contain conversation between me and chatgpt, which I willingly did, but with the expectation that only openai has access to it. Why should some lawyer working for NYT have access to it? OpenAI is precisely correct, no matter what other motives could be there.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#43

Post by glenstein »

BitsAndObjects wrote: post #26

So why aren’t they offering for an independent auditor to come into OpenAI and inspect their data (without taking it outside of OpenAI’s systems)? Probably because they have a lot to hide, a lot to lose, and no interest in fair play. Theoretically, they could prove their tools aren’t being used to doing anything wrong but practically, we all know they can’t because they are actually in the wrong (in both the moral an…

By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling?

You don't have to think that OpenAI is good to think there's a legitimate issue over exposing data to a third party for discovery. One could see the Times discovering something in private conversations outside the scope of the case, but through their own interpretation of journalistic necessity, believe it's something they're obligated to publish.

Part of OpenAI holding up their side of the bargain on user data, to the extent they do, is that they don't roll over like a beaten dog to accommodate unconditional discovery requests.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#44

Post by ale42 »

Why should OpenAI keep those conversations in the first point? (of course the answer is obvious) If they didn't keep them, they wouldn't have anything to hand over, and they would have protected users' privacy MUCH better. This is just as good as Facebook or Google care about their users' privacy.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#45

Post by preinheimer »

stevarino wrote: post #27
nerdjon wrote: post #17

This 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 i…

Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challengi…

"Your data belongs to you" but we can take any of your data we can find and use it for free for ever, without crediting you, notifying you, or giving you any way of having it removed.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#47

Post by gruez »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #41
stevarino wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challengi…

>your data belongs to you …”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!” Edit: honestly I’m surprised I left out the bit where they just indiscriminately scraped everything they could online to train these models. The stones to go “your data belongs to you” as they clearly feel entitled to our data is unbelievably absurd

>…”as does any culpability for poisoning yourself, suicide, and anything else we clearly enabled but don’t want to be blamed for!”

Should walmart be "culpable" for selling rope that someone hanged themselves with? Should google be "culpable" for returning results about how to commit suicide?

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#48

Post by greyman »

nlh wrote: post #14

Man, 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 fran…

Why it is absurd? Conversation between me and ChatGPT can be read by a lawyer working for NYT, and that is what is absurd.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#50

Post by HPsquared »

ale42 wrote: post #44

Why should OpenAI keep those conversations in the first point? (of course the answer is obvious) If they didn't keep them, they wouldn't have anything to hand over, and they would have protected users' privacy MUCH better. This is just as good as Facebook or Google care about their users' privacy.

They didn't keep temporary chats. They were ordered to keep those as part of this case.
Post reply on HN