Can this legal principle be used on Gmail too?
Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
51–60 of 441 posts
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#52Why 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.
>They didn't keep temporary chats
I thought they did? The warning currently says
>This chat won't appear in history, use or update ChatGPT's memory, or be used to train our models. For safety purposes, we may keep a copy of this chat for up to 30 days.
But AFAIK it was this way before the lawsuit as well.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
do you know what happens when you Google how to commit suicide?
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#54Maybe they should release some kind of NYT browser add-on, so users can cooperatively share their OpenAI data?
OpenAI would/could say the data is biased (maybe even purposefully).
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#55Wondering if anyone here has a good answer to this:
what protection does user data typically have during legal discovery in a civil suit like this where the defendant is a service provider but relevant evidence is likely present in user data?
Does a judge have to weigh a users' expectation of privacy against the request? Do terms of service come into play here (who actually owns the data? what privacy guarantees does the company make?).
I'm assuming in this case that the request itself isn't overly broad and seems like a legitimate use of the discovery process.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#56> Each week, 800 million people use ChatGPT to think...
I think I have enough with the first sentence, no need to read more. The narration is clear, we are the brain and no one can stop us.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#57your data belongs to you, just like our data about you belongs to us.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#58Wondering if anyone here has a good answer to this: what protection does user data typically have during legal discovery in a civil suit like this where the defendant is a service provider but relevant evidence is likely present in user data? Does a judge have to weigh a users' expectation of privacy against the request? Do terms of service come into play here (who actually owns the data? what privacy guarantees does…
it is dramatically determined by the state and the judge
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
>…”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?
do you know what happens when you Google how to commit suicide?
The same that happens with chatgpt? ie. if you do it in an overt way you get a canned suicide prevention result, but you can still get the "real" results if you try hard enough to work around the safety measures.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn't keep temporary chats. They were ordered to keep those as part of this case.
>They didn't keep temporary chats I thought they did? The warning currently says >This chat won't appear in history, use or update ChatGPT's memory, or be used to train our models. For safety purposes, we may keep a copy of this chat for up to 30 days. But AFAIK it was this way before the lawsuit as well.
30 days is perhaps a bit long, but they didn't keep them longer than that. It's pretty clear and reasonable.
The dodgy thing is that they don't now warn users that all chats, including temporary, are now "Bcc: NYT"