191–200 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To have at least a choice of using a European trained model. Downloadable weights is not open source. Mistral is able to respond to any regulatory queries about training data and concerns.
Haha, the answer is "european regulation"?
I pay for a subscription to Duck.ai mainly because I don't want to be constantly fighting my vendor to protect my privacy. Microsoft already did a rug pull on me and opted me in to training months after I signed up with Github Copilot. It exhausting and ultimately futile to monitor these companies. It's not guaranteed that Duck.ai will continue to uphold its promise of not training on your sessions — if the company g…
I also pay for duck.ai's service. They're my main "chat bot" thing, and while I had already been paying for their other services when I discovered I also had a duck.ai subscription, I choose to use them primarily because privacy is their whole brand. I only have two minor complainst: I want my conversations to sync between mobile and desktop (while being E2E), and I want a way to organize conversations into "projects…
You have to be rather naive if you don't think these companies don't simply train on your prompts with or without your consent. They literally scrape everything - legal or not - and claim its fair use to train on, including straight piracy The idea that they'll steal from everyone except you is just wishful thinking
And yet, software companies are donating their means of production to these crooks left and right, hastening the day where they really will become obsolete. I'm sure others do equally unwise things.
If you're big enough, crime pays exceedingly well.
You have to be rather naive if you don't think these companies don't simply train on your prompts with or without your consent. They literally scrape everything - legal or not - and claim its fair use to train on, including straight piracy The idea that they'll steal from everyone except you is just wishful thinking
This is why these companies paying subscriptions shoveling everything into Claude thinking "oh, they're not training on our stuff" is hilarious to me. Of course they are. They probably are extra super-duper sure not to have Claude admit to that in any way, but there's no way they're giving up training on the sum total of both open and closed source code out there.
Context: After careful research our organization preferred a European partner with good central privacy controls. We landed on Mistral, after being disappointed that the Pro tier was opt-in to training on prompts by default we switched up to the Team tier which provides an organization dashboard with some relevant settings. As we did that Mistral changed these options and the Team tier was now also opt-in by default…
> opt-in by default That's called opt-out.
To those wondering, "opt" means to choose. "Opt in by default" makes no sense because you didn't choose; this is just "in by default". If they give you an option then it's called opt out. Opt in would be "out by default" with the option to go in.
You have to be rather naive if you don't think these companies don't simply train on your prompts with or without your consent. They literally scrape everything - legal or not - and claim its fair use to train on, including straight piracy The idea that they'll steal from everyone except you is just wishful thinking
These AI companies are immensely valuable targets. When they get breached, their datasets will inevitably penetrate public datasets. And why would any AI company refuse to train on 'public' data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have that toggle (but could indeed have sworn I saw it earlier). Sorry, I have always thought that "opting in" is, "opting for the presented option" and opting out is "opting out of it", so opting out [of sharing prompts for training] is choosing to not share, but apparently I was wrong my whole life. I'm not a native speaker, and I think most people here (in my country) would interpret this the way I do? Wei…
I think there is a simple, unambiguous way to describe this, which is to use the passive voice or an explicit subject with the past tense to clarify that you didn't do the opting in. Saying "we were disappointed to be opted in to training by default" clarifies the point you're trying to make, which is that the toggle (whatever it may be called) was set to training by someone else, not you. Actually in your case you'd…
Question: when AI companies say they don’t train on your input or output, do they mean that they don’t train on an extremely simple AI rework of your input or output as well?
I'm assuming they've all at least thought about it quite hard, which is worrying in-and-of itself :).
Same company that has a partnership with Saudis, btw.
This means exactly what? I think you would be hard pressed to find any relevant tech company that doesn’t have a relationship with the Saudis or is funded by them - or any government for that matter…