Another good reason to stay logged out when asking ChatGPT questions.
It's common and trivial to identify you by other means.
Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
131–140 of 441 posts
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
> giving a corporation infamous for promoting authoritarianism The NYT is certainly open to criticism along many fronts, but I don't have the slightest idea what you mean in claiming it promotes authoritarianism.
Well, the sponsors of the 1619 Project really don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to ethics.
I already said the NYT is certainly open to criticism. I fail to see any connection between the 1619 Project and authoritarianism.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#133From the FAQ: > Q: Is the NYT obligated to keep this data private? > A: Yes. The Times would be legally obligated at this time to not make any data public outside the court process. The NY Times has built over a century a reputation for fiercely protecting its confidential sources. Why are they somehow less trustworthy than OpenAI is? If the NY Times leaked the customer information to a third party, they'd be in cont…
I generally agree, but publicizing the data is only a small part of the risk. The NYT could use the data for journalism research, then perform parallel construction of it for the public news article: For example, if they find Mayor X asking ChatGPT about fraud, porn, DUI, cancer diagnoses, murder, etc. - maybe even mentioning names, places, etc. - they could then investigate that issue, find other evidence, and publi…
First, the logs are supposed to be anonymized before being sent over. Second, the court can order the company's lawyers to "firewall" the logs from the newsroom so that their journalists can't get access to it, under penalty of contempt and potential disbarment.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#134Cynicism aside, this seems like an attempt to prune back a potentially excessive legal discovery demand by appealing to public opinion. The New York Times is demanding that we turn over 20 million of your private ChatGPT conversations. They claim they might find examples of you using ChatGPT to try to get around their paywall.
Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone feels the need to take a side here. Both of these organizations are ghoulish.
How is the NYT like OpenAI, or 'ghoulish'?
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#135The NYT used to market itself to advertisers with the observation that "our readers have the highest disposable income of any paper in the US".
It gives an interesting insight into politics and the modern Democrat party that the newspaper of the wealthy leans so strongly left. This was even before Trump came to power.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#136"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…
> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations
Its needed for the conversation history feature, a core feature of the ChatGPT product
Its like saying "What is the purpose of Google Photos storing millions of private images"
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#137I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…
> This case is unusual because the New York Times can't point to any harm
It helps to read the complaint. If that was the case, the case would have been subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted) challenge and closed.
Complaint: https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...
See pages 60ff.
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In copyright cases, typically you need to show some kind of harm. NYT is suing for statutory copyright infringement. That means you only need to demonstrate that the copyright infringement, since the infringement alone is considered harm; the actual harm only matters if you're suing for actual damages. This case really comes down to the very unsolved question of whether or not AI training and regurgitation is copyr…
NYT doesn't care about regurgitation. When it was doable, it was spotty enough that no one would rely on it. But now the "trick" doesn't even work anymore (you would paste the start of an article and chatgpt would continue it). What they want is to kill training, and more over, prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users.
> prevent the loss of being the middle-man between events and users
I'm confused by this phrase. I may be misreading but it sounds like you're frustrated, or at least cynical about NYT wanting to preserve their business model of writing about things that happen and selling the publication. To me it seems reasonable they'd want to keep doing that, and to protect their content from being stolen.
They certainly aren't the sole publication of written content about current events, so calling them "the middle-man between events and users" feels a bit strange.
If your concern is that they're trying to prevent OpenAI from getting a foot in the door of journalism, that confuses me even more. There are so, so many sources of news: other news agencies, independent journalists, randos spreading word-of-mouth information.
It is impossible for chatgpt to take over any aspect of being a "middle-man between events and users" because it can't tell you the news. it can only resynthesize journalism that it's stolen from somewhere else, and without stealing from others, it would be worse than the least reliable of the above sources. How could it ever be anything else?
This right here feels like probably a good understanding of why NYT wants openai to keep their gross little paws off their content. If I stole a newspaper off the back of a truck, and then turned around and charged $200 a month for the service of plagiarizing it to my customers, I would not be surprised if the Times's finest lawyers knocked on my door either.
Then again, I may be misinterpreting what you said. I tend to side with people who sue LLM companies for gobbling up all their work and regurgitating it, and spend zero effort trying to avoid that bias
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#139I wouldn't want to make it out like I think OpenAI is the good guy here. I don't. But conversations people thought they were having with OpenAI in private are now going to be scoured by the New York Times' lawyers. I'm aware of the third party doctrine and that if you put something online it can never be actually private. But I think this also runs counter to people's expectations when they're using the product. In c…
It's a part of privacy policy boilerplate that if a company is compelled by the courts to give up its logs it'll do it. I'm sure all of OpenAI's users read that policy before they started spilling their guts to a bot, right? Or at least had an LLM summarize it for them?
This is it isn't it? For any technology, I don't think anyone should have the expectation of privacy from lawyers if the company who has your data is brought to court
Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy
#140If the information is really that sensitive, why did they keep it in the first place?