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

Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 551 posts

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#131

Post by bigfishrunning »

diggan wrote: post #123
goalieca wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies all seem to turn against their users whenever they have revenue/earnings trouble.

It seems to me like some fundamental/core technologies/services just shouldn't be run by for-profit entities, and if come across one doing that, you need to carefully choose if you want to start being beholden to such entity. As the years go by, I'm finding myself being able to rely on those less and less, because every time I do, I eventually get disappointed by them working against their user base.

Except LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick with some really enthusiastic marketers. We don't need them.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#132

Post by Wowfunhappy »

I saw the popup yesterday. Maybe I've just gotten really good at navigating dark patterns (or I have stock-home syndrome), but I remember the opt out choice being really clear and easy to select.

I'm not arguing on the facts of the modal design, I don't remember either way, I just don't remember it being confusing.

Unless I was in some A B test?

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#133

Post by javierluraschi »

episteme wrote: post #38
troad wrote: post #8

You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.

What will you use instead? I’m finding Claude the best experience since ChatGPT 5 is so slow and not any better answers than 4.

https://grok.com

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#134

Post by benterix »

merelysounds wrote: post #79
troad wrote: post #8

You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.

> opt-in by default Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.

This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#135

Post by jascination »

goalieca wrote: post #115
sigmoid10 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts…

Companies all seem to turn against their users whenever they have revenue/earnings trouble.

Enshittification. It's a thing.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#136

Post by javcasas »

troad wrote: post #8

You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.

You can request your data to not be used. Your request will appropriately be read and redirected to /dev/null.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#137

Post by phtrivier »

Is there a summary of the stance on training with user data for the main llms ?

I have a really hard time thinking that Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc... would _not_ train on whatever people enter (willingly or not in the system.)

The silver lining is that what most people enter in a chat box is _utter crap_.

So, training on that would make the "Artificial Intelligence" system less and less intelligent - unless the devs find a way to automagically sort clever things from stupid things, in which case I want to buy _that_ product.

In the long run, LLMs dev are going to have to either:

* refrain from getting high on their own supply, and find a way to tag AI generated content

* or sort the bs from the truth, probably reinventing "trust in gatekeepers and favoring sources of truth with a track record" and copying social pressure, etc... until we have a "pulitzer price" and "academy awards" for most relevant AI sources with a higher sticker price, to separate from cheap slop.

That, or "2+2=7 because DeepChatGrokmini said so, and if you don't agree you're a terrorist, and if our AI math breaks your rocket it's your fault."

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#138

Post by illuminator83 »

Well, they've been using the whole internet and anything else they can get their hands on to train their models. If you are using LLMs and want to continue seeing them get better and more useful, you really have to accept that they train on data collected from their users. Unless there is another technology breakthrough somehow, this is going to be the best they can do to increase user satisfaction and make their product more useful.

TBH, I'd love to have a model which was specifically trained on conversation which I had with an earlier iteration. That would make it adapt to me and be less frustrating. Right now I'm relying only on instruction files to somewhat tune a model to my needs.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#139

Post by bigfishrunning »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #128
fHr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah people are gullible these days. We need another full 2008 crash that hurts bad before people wake up for a bit before becomming like this again.

Or we can root for happiness and prosperity instead

I "root for people not burglarizing my house", but i put locks on my doors also. The way the market for these tools is behaving, a crash is extremely likely; batten down the hatches.

Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy

#140

Post by komali2 »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #131
diggan wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like some fundamental/core technologies/services just shouldn't be run by for-profit entities, and if come across one doing that, you need to carefully choose if you want to start being beholden to such entity. As the years go by, I'm finding myself being able to rely on those less and less, because every time I do, I eventually get disappointed by them working against their user base.

Except LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick with some really enthusiastic marketers. We don't need them.

Under the current system we apparently do since Chatgpt is now by far and away the busiest psychiatrist in world history.

I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the holes LLMs are fulfilling as unnecessary. The only thing "necessary" is food water and shelter by some measures.

Post reply on HN