"We stored all kinds of data about you! Someone ELSE having it is bad!"
-OpenAI
Hard to be sympathetic with OpenAI here.
Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
211–220 of 441 posts
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#212If 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.
[flagged]
> They should sell their stuff by mail if they hate open culture so much.
Does open culture mean free? Are you willing to work for free? It is perfectly OK to sell goods in exchange for money, which is what NYT is doing.
I dont know why you're so upset with it. You cant walk into Apple Store and except to walk away with a free iPhone. Then why are you expecting to "walk" into nytimes' website and walk away with free article?
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#213I 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…
> having with OpenAI in private
I don't blieve that OpenAI, or any American corporation, has the wherewithal to actually maintain _your_ privacy in the face of _their_ profitability.
> typically you need to show some kind of harm.
You copied my material without my permission. I've been harmed. That right is independent of pricing. Otherwise Napster would never have generated legal cases.
> It's quite literally a fishing expedition.
It's why American courts are awesome.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#214"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…
>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail
They made the feature, now they get to live with it. So they can spare us the feigned surprise and outrage.
Instead of writing open letters they could of course do something about it. Even Google stopped storing your location timeline on their servers and now have it per-device only.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#215I've noticed a pattern of companies writing their customers open letters asking them to do their contract negotiations for them. First it was ESPN vs. YouTube (not watching MNF this week was the best 3 hours I've ever saved, sorry advertisers). Now it's OpenAI vs. The New York Times. Little do they know that I care very little for either party and enjoy seeing both of them squirm. You went to business school, not me.…
Two orgs helmed by supporters of authoritarianism (to put it nicely):
let them fight.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#216This 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…
Ironically there is precedent of Google caring more about this. When they realized location timeline was a gigantic fed honeypot, they made it per-device, locally stored only. No open letters were written in the process of.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? The claim is true. The nuance is us discussing if it should be true/allowed. You're simplifying the moral discussion and overall just being rude/dismissive. Comparing rope and an LLM comes across as disingenuous. I struggle to believe that you believe the two are comparable when it comes to the ethics of companies and their impact on society.
> Comparing rope and an LLM comes across as disingenuous. What makes you feel that? Both are tools, both have a wide array of good and bad uses. Maybe it'd be clearer if you explained why you think the two are incomparable except in cases of disingenuousness? Remember that things are only compared when they are different -- you wouldn't often compare a thing to itself. So, differences don't inherently make things inc…
A rope isn’t going to tell you to make sure you don’t leave it out on your bed so your loved ones can’t stop you from carrying out the suicide it helped talk you in to.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#218"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...
[deleted]
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#219If 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.
[flagged]
everyone like me that won't ever pay them a cent.
Yeah, how terrible that you should be expected to spend /eleven minutes/ of the average U.S. tech worker's salary for a month of information. Perish the thought.
They should sell their stuff by mail
You're in luck! You can subscribe to the New York Times by mail, just like you want.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store…
> NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" Credible to whom? In their supposed "investigation", they sent a whole page of text and complex pre-prompting and still failed to get the exact content back word for word. Something users would never do anyways. And that's probably the best the…
[deleted]