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

111–120 of 441 posts

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

#111

Post by etchalon »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #20
miltonlost wrote: post #10

This 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. Trai…

If they're reproducing NY Times articles, in full, that that is non-transformative. That's the point of the case.

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

#112

Post by bonsai_spool »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #39
Alex2037 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private ...had never been private in the first place. not only is the data used for refining the models, OpenAI had also shariah policed plenty of people for generating erotica.

This is about private chats, which are not used for training and only stored for 30 days. Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain through training on <1% more user chats. So no, they are not lying when they say they don't train on private chats.

> Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain

Is this true? I can’t recall anything like this (look at Ashley Madison which is alive and well)

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

#113

Post by glenstein »

freejazz wrote: post #79
glenstein wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

>By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling? It's OpenAI's data, there is a protective order in the case and OpenAI already agreed to anonymize it all. >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. lol... what?

Discovery isn't binary yes/no, it involves competing proposals regarding methods and scope for satisfying information requests. Sometimes requests are egregious or excessive, sometimes they are reasonable and subject to excessively zealous pushback.

Maybe you didn't read TFA but part of the case history was NYT requesting 1.4 billion records as part of discovery and being successfully challenged by OpenAI as unnecessary, and the essence of TFA is advocating for an alternative to the scope of discovery NYT is insisting on, hence the "not rolling over".

Try reading, it's fun!

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

#114

Post by otterley »

From the FAQ:

> Q: Is the NYT obligated to keep this data private?

> A: Yes. The Times would be legally obligated at this time to not make any data public outside the court process.

The NY Times has built over a century a reputation for fiercely protecting its confidential sources. Why are they somehow less trustworthy than OpenAI is?

If the NY Times leaked the customer information to a third party, they'd be in contempt of court. On the other hand, OpenAI is bound only by their terms of service with its customers, which they can modify as they please.

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

#115

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81

"The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations." As might any plaintiff. NYT might be the first of many others and the lawsuits may not be limited to copyright claims Why has OpenAI collected and stored 20 million conversations (including "deleted chats") What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations By contrast the purpose of NYT's reques…

NB. There is no order to "collect". The order is to preserve what is already being collected and stored in the ordinary course of business

https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

https://ia801404.us.archive.org/31/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.6...

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

#116

Post by fireflash38 »

outside1234 wrote: post #106
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…

Honestly the sooner OpenAI goes bankrupt the better. Just a totally corrupt firm.

I really should take the "invest in companies you hate" advice seriously.

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

#117

Post by outside1234 »

fireflash38 wrote: post #116
outside1234 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly the sooner OpenAI goes bankrupt the better. Just a totally corrupt firm.

I really should take the "invest in companies you hate" advice seriously.

I don't hate them. It is just plain to see they have discovered no scalable business model outside of getting larger and larger amounts of capital from investors to utilize intellectual property from others (either directly in the model aka NYT, or indirectly via web searches) without any rights. It is better for all of us the sooner this fails.

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

#118

Post by buellerbueller »

plorg wrote: post #74

As in every other dealing, OpenAI would have you believe they are so important that they are exempt from the legal discovery process.

Standard tech scaling playbook, page 69420: there is a function f(x) whereby if you're growing fast enough, you can ignore the laws, then buy the regulators. This is called "The Uber Curve"

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

#119

Post by Workaccount2 »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #112
Workaccount2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about private chats, which are not used for training and only stored for 30 days. Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain through training on <1% more user chats. So no, they are not lying when they say they don't train on private chats.

> Also, you need to understand, that for huge corps like OpenAI, the lying on your ToS will do orders of magnitude more damage to your brand than what you would gain Is this true? I can’t recall anything like this (look at Ashley Madison which is alive and well)

It's not national news when a company is found to be doing what they say they are doing.

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

#120

Post by wkat4242 »

If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this.

I'm glad the NYT is fighting them. They've infringed the rights of almost every news outlet but someone has to bring this case.

Post reply on HN