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

281–290 of 441 posts

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

#281

Post by fenomas »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #200
cush wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail

"Have you used ChatGPT?" No Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Maybe some of those voters are ChatGPT users I do searching from the command line in text mode. The script I use keeps a "log" (a customised SERP) of all query strings and search result URLs. I also have these URLs stored in the logs from the forward proxy. These are compressed using RePair. I can search the compressed logs faster this…

> Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however.

Sure, and also downvotes - that measures factionalism, not correctness.

But tech wise, you're confused. Functionally speaking chatgpt is a shared document editor - the server needs to store chat histories for the same reason Google Docs stores the content of documents. Users can submit text to chatgpt.com from one browser, and later edit that text from the app or a different browser. Ergo the text is stored on the server, simple as that.

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

#282

Post by gausswho »

fenomas wrote: post #268
gausswho wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syncthing could do that, if the software is designed to store locally. Ever since I put the effort into Syncthing across my all devices (paired with restic on one of them for backup), I can't help but see how cross-device functionality and cloud this are the Sysco hash potatoes that balloons Big Corp services' profit margins. Not saying it's easy to set up. But when you get there it's so liberating and you wish all s…

SyncThing syncs only when both clients are running at the same time. Nobody who edits a document on a website expects that they'll need to leave that browser window open in order to see the document in a different browser. Am I missing something? Is this seriously a heated HN debate over "why does this website need to store the text it sends to people who view the website?"?

We're not talking about collaborative tooling, just a record of what you've asked an AI assistant. If it doesn't sync right away, it's not the end of the world. I find that's true with most things.

And the clients don't need to be running at the same time if you have a third device that's always on and receiving the changes from either (like a backup system). Eventually everything arrives. It's not as robust as what Google or iCloud gives you, but it's good enough for me.

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

#283

Post by handoflixue »

gausswho wrote: post #282
fenomas wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SyncThing syncs only when both clients are running at the same time. Nobody who edits a document on a website expects that they'll need to leave that browser window open in order to see the document in a different browser. Am I missing something? Is this seriously a heated HN debate over "why does this website need to store the text it sends to people who view the website?"?

We're not talking about collaborative tooling, just a record of what you've asked an AI assistant. If it doesn't sync right away, it's not the end of the world. I find that's true with most things. And the clients don't need to be running at the same time if you have a third device that's always on and receiving the changes from either (like a backup system). Eventually everything arrives. It's not as robust as what…

It's great that you'd enjoy a significantly worse product that requires you to also be familiar with a completely unrelated product.

For some reason, consumers have decided that they prefer a significantly better product that doesn't require any additional applications or technical expertise ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#284

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

News Plaintiffs October 15, 2025 Letter Motion to Compel

https://ia801205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61...

OpenAI October 30, 2025 Letter Opposing Motion to Compel

https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61...

November 7, 2025 Order on Motion to Compel

https://ia601205.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.61...

"OpenAI has failed to explain how its consumers privacy rights are not adequately protected by: (1) the existing protective order in this multidistrict litigation or (2) OpenAIs exhaustive de-identification of all of the 20 million Consumer ChatGPT Logs.1

1. As News Plaintiffs point out, OpenAI has spent the last two and a half months processing and deidentifying this 20 million record sample. (ECF 719 at 1 n.1)."

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

#285

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

cush wrote: post #186
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 Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail

I read in the pleadings that OpenAI claims it cannot search its logs without decompressing them first

I can search the logs I keep without decompressing

Every user is different and each is free to use whatever software they want

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

#286

Post by chemotaxis »

FloorEgg wrote: post #238
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does OpenAI collect and retain for 30 days^1 chats that the user wants to be deleted It was doing this prior to being sued by the NYT and many others OpenAI was collecting chats even when the user asked for deletion, i.e., the user did not want them saved That's why a lawsuit could require OpenAi to issue a hold order, retain these chats for longer and produce them to another party in discovery If OpenAI was not…

I'm not commenting on the core point of your comment, only the "why retain for 30 days" question. Im an age of automated backups and failovers, deleting can be really hard. Part of the answer could simply be that syncing a delete across all the redundancies (while ensuring those redundancies are reliable when a disaster happens and they need to recover or maintain uptime) may take days to weeks. Also the 30 days coul…

> I'm not commenting on the core point of your comment, only the "why retain for 30 days" question. Im an age of automated backups and failovers, deleting can be really hard.

I doubt it's that. Deletion is hard, but it's not "exactly 30 days" hard.

The most likely explanation is that OpenAI wants the ability to investigate abuse and / or publicly-made claims ("ChatGPT told my underage kid to !" / "ChatGPT praised Hitler!"). If they delete chats right away, they're flying blind and you can claim anything you want.

Now, whether you should have a "delete" button that doesn't really delete stuff is another question.

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

#288

Post by nixpulvis »

I mean, I hate that our lives are becoming consistently more and more surveilled, but this doesn't shock me. I've assumed my Google search history is accessible, despite not even being logged in. Of course they are saving conversation. Even if they said they weren't I wouldn't believe it. It's fucking sad, but that's the reality.

I wish I had a solution, so we could all feel a sense of freedom and pressure lifted from our thoughts and actions. But I only see this getting worse.

So am I upset that the NYT's lawyers want access to the records... a little. It's an invasion of privacy. But I'm more upset that they have anything to dig through to begin with.

If only we could see how things within all these companies we are forced to trust actually work. If only OpenAI was actually open. When will we all learn to demand open source, open platform services. Capitalize the development, and capitalize the infrastructure, but leave the process and operations out in the open so users can make informed decisions again. Normalize it like how homes are normally inspected before being purchased.

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

#289

Post by [deleted] »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #200
cush wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations Have you used ChatGPT? Your conversation history is on the left rail

"Have you used ChatGPT?" No Large number of upvotes on the quoted comment however. Maybe some of those voters are ChatGPT users I do searching from the command line in text mode. The script I use keeps a "log" (a customised SERP) of all query strings and search result URLs. I also have these URLs stored in the logs from the forward proxy. These are compressed using RePair. I can search the compressed logs faster this…

[deleted]

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #217
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Comparing rope and an LLM comes across as disingenuous. What makes you feel that? Both are tools, both have a wide array of good and bad uses. Maybe it'd be clearer if you explained why you think the two are incomparable except in cases of disingenuousness? Remember that things are only compared when they are different -- you wouldn't often compare a thing to itself. So, differences don't inherently make things inc…

A rope isn’t going to tell you to make sure you don’t leave it out on your bed so your loved ones can’t stop you from carrying out the suicide it helped talk you in to.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN