101–110 of 441 posts
Also down to 20M from 120M per court order.
Sorry, but this seems a completely reasonable standard for discovery to me given the total lack of privacy on the platform - especially for free users.
Also sorry it probably means you’re going to owe a lot of money to the Times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its clearly propaganda. "Your data belongs to you." I'm sure the ToS says otherwise, as OpenAI likely owns and utilizes this data. Yes, they say they are working on end-to-end encryption (whatever that means when they control one end), but that is just a proposal at this point. Also their framing of the NYT intent makes me strongly distrust anything they say. Sit down with a third party interviewer who asks challengi…
"Your data belongs to you" but we can take any of your data we can find and use it for free for ever, without crediting you, notifying you, or giving you any way of having it removed.
They could’ve asked permission. They could have worked with content providers instead of scraping. But they didn’t - and they knew what could happen.
FA (with fair use boundaries) and FO
"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…
No it's not. It's literally a court order mandating them to collect this data. - [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/openai-offers-20...
Man, the sooner this company goes bankrupt the better.
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…
"How dare the New York Times demand access to our vault of everything-we-keep to figure out if we're a bunch of lying asses. We must resist them in the name of user privacy! Signed, the people who have scraped literally everything to incorporate it into the products we make." OpenAI may be trying to paint themselves as the goody-two-shoes here, but they're not.
But that vault can contain conversation between me and chatgpt, which I willingly did, but with the expectation that only openai has access to it. Why should some lawyer working for NYT have access to it? OpenAI is precisely correct, no matter what other motives could be there.
You can argue about "the expectation" of privacy all you want, but this is completely detached from reality. My assumption is that almost no third parties I share information with have magic immunity that prevents the information from being used in a legal action involving them.
Maybe my doctor? Maybe my lawyer? IANAL but I'm not even confident in those. If I text my friend saying their party last night was great and they're in court later and need to prove their whereabouts that night, I understand that my text is going to be used as evidence. That might be a private conversation, but it's not my data when I send it to someone else and give them permission to store it forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
And lo, complaints about plaintiffs started before I even had to scroll. If this company hadn't willy-nilly done everything they could to vacuum up the world's data, wherever it may be, however it may have been protected, then maybe they wouldn't be in this predicament.