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

Training our own AI models

posthog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Training our own AI models

#61

Post by xrd »

frankest wrote: post #52
xrd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to be snarky but why not just opt out instead of vibe coding your own analytics platform? I'm uncomfortable with people using my data to train AI, but those concerns revolve around where my data goes, and whether I'm notified/aware. Posthog is giving me good answers to those questions here.

It has to do with the priorities of the company and its leadership. Either they lack the basic awareness to know that training on your business customers data will likely leak their sensitive information to their competitors, or they just intend to sell that data. We are not paying to have our data stolen.

Very fair point!

Re: Training our own AI models

#62

Post by croes »

mannanj wrote: post #33
JimDabell wrote: post #7

“Opt-in by default” is an oxymoron. If it’s default then I haven’t opted into anything. It’s been enabled by default.

Isn't it kind of like mandatory tip? If you haven't given it voluntarily, i.e .its automatically opted-in and you maybe can't even not give it. its the same.

Opt-in by default means it is either mandatory (if you can‘t disable it) or it‘s opt-out (if you can) Opt-In by default is BS to make it sound less invasive

Re: Training our own AI models

#63

Post by teraflop »

sixtyj wrote: post #4

Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list: Users on our EU cloud instance are opted out by default So too users with agreements that prevent training (e.g. BAA, MSA, or similar) All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default We will anonymize all data before it's used for…

> All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default

Cool, cool. Glad to see that you are the arbiter of what your users have "opted" to do, and their input isn't required.

While we're at it, I'm going to "volunteer" your time to rebuild my patio this weekend. You don't need to worry about volunteering, I've done it for you.

Re: Training our own AI models

#64

Post by micromacrofoot »

mark242 wrote: post #6
sixtyj wrote: post #4

Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list: Users on our EU cloud instance are opted out by default So too users with agreements that prevent training (e.g. BAA, MSA, or similar) All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default We will anonymize all data before it's used for…

If "we will opt everyone in because otherwise we won't get enough data because we know users won't opt in" is your business model, maybe it's time for a rethink.

this is the business model of all companies training AI, if they had to get permission we wouldn't have frontier LLMs at all

Re: Training our own AI models

#65

Post by bernardom »

Waterluvian wrote: post #46

PostHog was a system we set up once, generally don't think about, and review from time to time, providing some occasional value. It was mostly harmless to leave around. But it's apparently yet one more thing we have to be actively suspicious of as it defaults towards an intolerable state. So it's easier to just rip it out of the system and move on.

[flagged]

Re: Training our own AI models

#66

Post by TZubiri »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #31
TZubiri wrote: post #20

Today I was thinking, if I start a company in the LLM tooling space, I would put in the company mission in the incorporation documents that client data will not be used to train. The temptation and the value is too great, and the opt-in opt-out consent thing ends up being a fuckery where the company tries to trick the user into allowing them to take a look into the data, presumably because they are selling the produc…

More companies need to make, for lack of a better term, "oaths" of what they won't do as a company. My pitch on it is to tie it to financial penalties the company agrees to pay, somewhere in the "enough to incentivize a significant portion of our user base to sue us" territory, such that it would be financial suicide to violate them.

Contracts ad incorporations are designed for this, the issue is that the incumbent legal strategy is to use template documents, and to reduce potential disputes to 1$ in private arbitration, essentially legal's job is to make legal go away.

Another term I would incorporate is a Seppuku term, if we get hacked, I resign, the company goes bankrupt. Anything else is the wrong attitude to computer security for companies that want to scale to Global reach.

Re: Training our own AI models

#68

Post by micromacrofoot »

codersfocus wrote: post #55
hyperbovine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely hope this never comes to pass, but you or your loved ones may someday find themselves in the position of wishing more people were opted in for organ donation. The same cannot be said for some random corporation training AI models off your data to make a buck or two.

I think it might be better to get rid of the organ *donation* system entirely. Organ transplant surgery costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet donors get zilch, which is completely unfair when everyone else in the value chain gets paid. If instead it was "allow my organs to be sold for my estate" I think the supply of organs would greatly increase, which would be win/win.

there are a number of problems with people selling their organs for profit, it's a perverse incentive — the people in the chain who otherwise get paid don't get paid for the organs, they get paid for the labor of doing their jobs

Re: Training our own AI models

#69

Post by deflator »

skrebbel wrote: post #53
deflator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true. I was considering PostHog, but this sours them in my eyes. Very deceptive wording.

They could’ve done a lot worse, and most companies would’ve.

There's a helpful response. It could always be worse!

Re: Training our own AI models

#70

Post by abustamam »

mannanj wrote: post #33
JimDabell wrote: post #7

“Opt-in by default” is an oxymoron. If it’s default then I haven’t opted into anything. It’s been enabled by default.

Isn't it kind of like mandatory tip? If you haven't given it voluntarily, i.e .its automatically opted-in and you maybe can't even not give it. its the same.

Many restaurants have the audacity to add a 20% (or whatever percentage) "service fee" that isn't considered tip. It even says something like "we use this to pay our staff competitive wages and health insurance." You can't opt out. It's just part of the bill. Then they have the gall to ask for a tip on top of that.

I've taken to a) leaving a negative Google or yelp review for such establishments and b) never coming back. This is a practice that needs to die.

Post reply on HN