ChatGPT for Teams

What's happening is that lowercase "sentence case" titles have become more popular and normalized so repeated exposure to that style can cause a subconscious heuristic of "Capitalized letter signifies a Brand Name or Proper Noun". You can try to advise people not to assume that but it doesn't change the type of "sentence case" titles people are now repeatedly exposed to.

The New York Times still uses "Title Case" but a lot of other newspapers switched to lowercase sentence case. Washington Post switched in 2009. And Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc all followed.

Other popular websites with lowercase titles include Vox, ArsTechnica, TechCrunch, etc.

And the above is substantially what I said, and undoubtedly would find a better reception with a larger audience.

I'm troubled though, because I already sanitize what I write and say by passing it through a GPT-style "alignment" filter in almost every interaction precisely because I know my authentic self is brash/abrasive/neuro-atypical/etc. and it's more advantageous to talk like ChatGPT than to talk like Ben. Hacker News is one of a few places real or digital where I just talk like Ben.

Maybe I'm an outlier in how different I am and it'll just be me that is sad to start talking like GPT, and maybe the net change in society will just be a little drift towards brighter and more diplomatic.

But either way it's kind of a drag: either passing me and people like me through a filter is net positive, which would suck but I guess I'd get on board, or it actually edits out contrarian originality in toto, in which case the world goes all Huxley really fast.

Door #3 where we net people out on accomplishment and optics with a strong tilt towards accomplishment doesn't seem to be on the menu.

We shouldn’t but many of us do. As a title word, there’s ambiguity if it’s a proper noun or not given title styling. Given the context in this case (HN, OpenAI, ChatGPT) it was pretty difficult for my brain to not assume it was referring to Microsoft Teams so it baited me in, perhaps unintentionally. I’m not too upset about it because I knew that going in but none the less, a quick read of the title should make it obvious to call it “ChatGPT for Collaboration” or something of that nature.

The benefit of training on data of people they've explicitly agreed not to train on (which is probably a very small % of even paying users yet alone free ones) is unlikely to be worth the risks. They'd be more likely just to not offer the opt-out agreement option.

But ultimately, we often can't know if people or companies will or won't honour agreements, just like when we share a scam of a passport with a bank we can't be sure they aren't passing that scan onto an identity-theft crime ring. Or course, reputation matters, and while banks often have a shit reputation they generally don't have a reputation for doing that sort of thing.

OpenAI have been building up a bit of a shit reputation among many people, and have even got a reputation for training on data that other people don't believe they should have the right to train on, so that won't help get people to trust them (as demonstrated by you asking the question), but personally I still think they're not likely to cross the line of training on data they've explicitly agreed with a customer not to use.