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

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: Training our own AI models

#101

Post by sedimannapoleon »

xrd wrote: post #32
frankest wrote: post #17

What a great reminder to build my own analytics and self host. PostHog just lost a customer. They could easily send a email to each customer asking if we want this. The assumption means they have no product intuition about their own customers, let alone the customers of their customers. Bye.

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.

[dead]

Re: Training our own AI models

#102

Post by rectang »

abustamam wrote: post #88
rectang wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to wait tables once upon a time and it was standard practice to add a fixed service charge for any large party in lieu of a tip. Have you really never encountered that?

I've encountered large party service charges and that makes sense because it usually requires staff to do stuff they wouldn't normally do for smaller parties. I'm talking about restaurants that just add service charge to everyone.

I think the lesson from the airline industry is that while consumers will get angry about surcharges, pricing transparency is what really gets punished in the marketplace. There are enough consumers who will always buy the deceptively priced item that it's suicidal to tell the truth (absent government regulation forcing the issue for all purveyors).

There are a fair number of well-meaning restaurateurs who have tried no-tip policies for ethical reasons. But the mass marketplace has not changed.

Re: Training our own AI models

#103

Post by sammy0910 »

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…

as a user i dont like it, and am disappointed. it will take a bit of time to transition our systems off of posthog, but we will need to.

if you are looking at your metrics, I want to be clear that this transition will not happen overnight, but it _will_ happen for this reason, so just be aware that your short-term metrics won't tell the full story

Re: Training our own AI models

#104

Post by [deleted] »

abustamam wrote: post #81
rectang wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you leave a negative review if they add the service charge but don't ask for a tip?

I've never had the pleasure of encountering that situation. But at what point do we call a spade a spade and say it's just them secretly inflating their prices? "everything is a penny but we charge a 1000000% service charge"

[deleted]

Re: Training our own AI models

#105

Post by chrinic6391 »

abustamam wrote: post #88
rectang wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to wait tables once upon a time and it was standard practice to add a fixed service charge for any large party in lieu of a tip. Have you really never encountered that?

I've encountered large party service charges and that makes sense because it usually requires staff to do stuff they wouldn't normally do for smaller parties. I'm talking about restaurants that just add service charge to everyone.

[dead]

Re: Training our own AI models

#106

Post by cj »

mmh0000 wrote: post #93
abustamam wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic but I'm curious what's evil about that article. Bizarre, sure, but evil? They took a brain (an organ) from a dead person who had previously given consent to use their organs for that purpose.

I think most people, and definitely myself, when they sign up to be an organ donor, they think of the liver, kidney, and heart. Things that will help other people. Not the brain, the center of conscience, being kept in some sort of horror-movie half-alive state. I do not think we understand consciousness enough to rule out what those brains are experiencing.

> half-alive state

The brain can't be "half-alive" after you've died.

Re: Training our own AI models

#107

Post by 48terry »

> Why this is opt out, not opt in

> Put simply, because otherwise we will not have enough data to train a model that's actually useful.

Hmm, when asked to opt-in to giving their data away for yet another AI non-service, people don't want to. That's strange! The only way to get their data is to assume you can take it and force them to tell you to stop. Wonder what that could mean? Oh well, it's a mystery no one will be able to solve.

Re: Training our own AI models

#108

Post by staticautomatic »

Friendly reminder that you don't have to enable PostHog replays at all. I have a site lightly instrumented server-side with the slim bundle, and I'm still gonna double check my account settings but I'm pretty sure it's not even capable of doing the replay telemetry.

Re: Training our own AI models

#109

Post by 48terry »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #64
mark242 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> if they had to get permission we wouldn't have frontier LLMs at all

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Re: Training our own AI models

#110

Post by bigstrat2003 »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #64
mark242 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That would be a good thing TBH.
Post reply on HN