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

Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 441 posts

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#141

Post by johnwheeler »

wkat4242 wrote: post #120

If OpenAI hadn't used data from the NYT without permission in the first place this wouldn't have happened. That is the root cause of all this. I'm glad the NYT is fighting them. They've infringed the rights of almost every news outlet but someone has to bring this case.

Exactly. And the OpenAI corporates speak acting like they give a shit about our best interests. Give me a break, Sam Altman. How stupid do you think everyone is?

They have proven that they are the most untrustworthy company on the planet

And this isn't AI fear speaking. This is me raging at Sam Altman for spreading so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt just to get investments. The rest of us have to suffer for the last two years, worrying about losing our jobs, only to find out the AGI lie is complete bullsh*t.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#143

Post by mmooss »

One reason that people make cynical, deceptive claims is that it doesn't impact their credibility later. The next thing they say, people don't respond, 'well you deceived us last time'; when the honest person says something, others don't give them much credibility.

That little bit of morality - truth, honesty, integrity, etc. - is essential to a functioning society that leans toward good outcomes. (Often it seems that many just assume we'll get good outcomes, not that they must work hard to make it happen.)

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#144

Post by SilverElfin »

macki0 wrote: post #136
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #81

"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"

This is true but why retain deleted conversations?

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#145

Post by SilverElfin »

tantalor wrote: post #66
cogman10 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling, but that's not what this is. NYTimes has produced credible evidence that OpenAI is simply stealing and republishing their content. The question they have to answer is "to what extent has this happened?" That's a question they fundamentally cannot answer without these chat logs. That's what discovery, especially in a copyright case, is about. Think about it this way. Let's say this were a book store…

> The user has no right to privacy The correct term for this is prima facie right. You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law. Similarly, liberty is a prima facie right; you can be arrested for committing a crime.

Is there any evaluation of which right or which harm is larger? It seems like the idea that one outweighs another is arbitrary. Is there a principled thing behind it?

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#147

Post by prasadjoglekar »

SilverElfin wrote: post #145
tantalor wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The user has no right to privacy The correct term for this is prima facie right. You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law. Similarly, liberty is a prima facie right; you can be arrested for committing a crime.

Is there any evaluation of which right or which harm is larger? It seems like the idea that one outweighs another is arbitrary. Is there a principled thing behind it?

That's what the court is for. Weighing the different arguments and applying precedents

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#148

Post by infamouscow »

> 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.

Let me rewrite this without propaganda:

Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers, we couldn't persuade the judge that our malfeasance should be kept from the light of day.

Re: Fighting the New York Times' invasion of user privacy

#150

Post by freejazz »

glenstein wrote: post #113
freejazz wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling? It's OpenAI's data, there is a protective order in the case and OpenAI already agreed to anonymize it all. >Part of OpenAI holding up their side of the bargain on user data, to the extent they do, is that they don't roll over like a beaten dog to accommodate unconditional discovery requests. lol... what?

Discovery isn't binary yes/no, it involves competing proposals regarding methods and scope for satisfying information requests. Sometimes requests are egregious or excessive, sometimes they are reasonable and subject to excessively zealous pushback. Maybe you didn't read TFA but part of the case history was NYT requesting 1.4 billion records as part of discovery and being successfully challenged by OpenAI as unnecess…

>Discovery isn't binary yes/no, it involves competing proposals regarding methods and scope for satisfying information requests. Sometimes requests are egregious or excessive, sometimes they are reasonable and subject to excessively zealous pushback.

There is a court order that OpenAI must produce these documents. OpenAI litigated this issue and lost. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The court decided the documents were relevant and they must produce a subset of them. Rather than immediately complying, they went and posted this BS "article".

>Maybe you didn't read TFA but part of the case history was NYT requesting 1.4 billion records as part of discovery and being successfully challenged by OpenAI as unnecessary, and the essence of TFA is advocating for an alternative to the scope of discovery NYT is insisting on, hence the "not rolling over".

I don't think you read TFA.

>Try reading, it's fun!

Lol, rudeness aside, you are apparently poorly informed. No doubt it is because you are relying on OpenAI's telling of the events and not actual reporting on the events. Btw, yesterday they were ordered to produce 20m redacted logs. You keep going on about the original discovery request, but that's not what the issue is and it's not the issue OpenAI lost on that they are now crying to the public about.

Also btw, I saw you posting in other comments that OpenAI needs to figure out how to anonymize the data. You probably don't realize this, but OpenAI already represented to the court that the data was anonymized and now are just using this as another delay tactic. Something about "reading being fun". I'd agree. Still, it does depend what you read. Try reading some more!

Post reply on HN