This is going to improve the quality of LLM responses for users. I'm for this.
Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
181–190 of 551 posts
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Training on private user interactions is a privacy violation; training on public, published texts is (some argue) an intellectual property violation. They're very different kinds of moral rights.
Have Anthropic ever written clearly exactly about what training datasets they use? Like a list of everything included? AFAIK, all the providers/labs are kind of tightly lipped about this, so I think it's safe to assume they've slurped up all data they've come across via multiple methodologies, "private" or not.
[deleted]
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#183Nobody saw this coming, absolutely shocked!1!1!!!1
The bubble is deflating/popping. The MIT study has really dampened the excitement on AI.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#184Earlier 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.
I’d say they’re a fundamental technology by now. Imagine how many people rely on them. And I’ve seen some heavy reliance.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#185Not a surprise. All the major players have reached the limits of training on existing data—they’re already training on essentially the whole internet plus a bunch of content they allegedly stole (hence various lawsuits). There haven’t been any major breakthroughs in model architecture from the major players recently and thus they’re now in a battle for more data to train on. They need data, and they want YOUR data, n…
It's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop.
If they had done this in a more measured way they might have been able to separate human from AI content such as doing legal deals with publishers.
However they couldn't wait to just take it all to be first and now the well is poisoned for everyone.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> We need another full 2008 crash that hurts bad
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#187Not a surprise. All the major players have reached the limits of training on existing data—they’re already training on essentially the whole internet plus a bunch of content they allegedly stole (hence various lawsuits). There haven’t been any major breakthroughs in model architecture from the major players recently and thus they’re now in a battle for more data to train on. They need data, and they want YOUR data, n…
Further proof why guardrails/regulation is needed.
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#188Unfortunate, but frankly I didn't even know about them not training on user data. Actually up until a few months ago I swore I just couldn't use these hosted models (I regularly use local inference but like most my local hardware yields only so much quality). Tech companies, nay many companies, will lie and cheat to squeeze out whatever they can. That includes reneging promises. With data privacy specifically I alway…
So much this. I for one haven't opted out. I feel it's in our best interest to have better models. It would be ideal to be able to opt in/out per thread, but I don't expect most users to pay attention / be bothered with that.
In this aspect, it would've been great to give us an incentive – a discount, a donation on our behalf, plant a percent of a tree or just beg / ask nicely, explain what's in it for us.
Regarding privacy, our conversations are saved anyway, so if it would be a breach this wouldn't make much of a difference, would it?
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last time my brother and I were discussing about anthropic, they were worth 90B$, and that was a month ago, he asked chatgpt in the middle of the conversation, either it was a sneaky sabotage from gpt or my memory is fuzzy but I thought that 90b$ was really underrated for anthropic given the scaleAi deal or windsurf/cursor deals.
>I thought that 90b$ was really underrated for anthropic That was true when the tech leadership was an open question and it seemed like any one of the big players could make a breakthrough at any moment that would propel them to the top. Nowadays it has pattered out and the market is all about sustainable user growth. In that sense Anthropic is pretty overvalued, at least if you think that OpenAI's valuation is legit…
Note that it was before kimi k2 (I think) and as such back when anthropic was truly the best in class back then at coding and there wasn't any competition and every day on Hackernews would be filled about someone writin something about claude code.
And the underrated comparison was more towards the fact that I couldn't believe scaleAi's questionable accquisition by facebook and I still remember the conversation me and my brother were having which was, why doesn't facebook pay 2x, 3x the price of anthropic but buy anthropic instead of scaleAI itself
well I think the answer my brother told was that meta could buy it but anthropic is just not selling it
Re: Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
#190TBH I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to change their mind on this, because I find it incredibly frustrating to know that current gen agentic coding systems are incapable of actually learning anything from their interactions with me - especially when they make the same stupid mistakes over and over.
Okay they're not going to be learning in real time. Its not like you're getting your data stolen and then getting something out of it - you're not. What you're talking about is context.
Data gathered for training still has to be used in training, i.e. a new model that, presumably, takes months to develop and train.
Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. It won't catch things specific to YOUR workflow, just common stuff across many users.