Training our own AI models • Hacker News Board

Re: Training our own AI models

#31

Post by OkayPhysicist » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

TZubiri wrote: post #20

Today I was thinking, if I start a company in the LLM tooling space, I would put in the company mission in the incorporation documents that client data will not be used to train. The temptation and the value is too great, and the opt-in opt-out consent thing ends up being a fuckery where the company tries to trick the user into allowing them to take a look into the data, presumably because they are selling the produc…

More companies need to make, for lack of a better term, "oaths" of what they won't do as a company. My pitch on it is to tie it to financial penalties the company agrees to pay, somewhere in the "enough to incentivize a significant portion of our user base to sue us" territory, such that it would be financial suicide to violate them.

Re: Training our own AI models

#32

Post by xrd » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:53 PM UTC

frankest wrote: post #17

What a great reminder to build my own analytics and self host. PostHog just lost a customer. They could easily send a email to each customer asking if we want this. The assumption means they have no product intuition about their own customers, let alone the customers of their customers. Bye.

Not trying to be snarky but why not just opt out instead of vibe coding your own analytics platform? I'm uncomfortable with people using my data to train AI, but those concerns revolve around where my data goes, and whether I'm notified/aware. Posthog is giving me good answers to those questions here.

Re: Training our own AI models

#33

Post by mannanj » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

JimDabell wrote: post #7

“Opt-in by default” is an oxymoron. If it’s default then I haven’t opted into anything. It’s been enabled by default.

Isn't it kind of like mandatory tip? If you haven't given it voluntarily, i.e .its automatically opted-in and you maybe can't even not give it. its the same.

Re: Training our own AI models

#34

Post by johnsillings » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

kelsey98765431 wrote: post #26

sixtyj wrote: post #4

Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list: Users on our EU cloud instance are opted out by default So too users with agreements that prevent training (e.g. BAA, MSA, or similar) All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default We will anonymize all data before it's used for…

Cant wait to see posthog crash and burn, i have hated their service for years now.

why?

Re: Training our own AI models

#35

Post by jasonmp85 » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Training our own AI models

#36

Post by jasonmp85 » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

johnsillings wrote: post #34

kelsey98765431 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant wait to see posthog crash and burn, i have hated their service for years now.

why?

[dead]

Re: Training our own AI models

#37

Post by natch » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

Tsarp wrote: post #8

tines wrote: post #5

“Opt-in by default” = opt-out?

Guess its "Opted-in" by default

Then it’s not opted. It’s just in.

Re: Training our own AI models

#38

Post by infecto » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

sixtyj wrote: post #4

Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list: Users on our EU cloud instance are opted out by default So too users with agreements that prevent training (e.g. BAA, MSA, or similar) All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default We will anonymize all data before it's used for…

> Most companies would bury this change in a deceptively boring T&Cs update, but we value transparency, so here's what you need to know in an internet-friendly numbered list:

This feels like a really bad defense. It’s great you provide transparency but I don’t want my analytics system writing my code. There are already so many other first movers that are better that I would rather connect to your analytics.

Re: Training our own AI models

#39

Post by mrweasel » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

xnorswap wrote: post #24

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All other users on our US cloud instance are opted in by default This is slimy.

It's slimy because your government allows it, this doesn't have to be the case. 1. Lobby your representatives to improve your data protection laws, even if you think it's pointless to do so 2. Stop attacking EU data protection laws, even if they inconvenience you As can be seen from this announcement, data protection laws do make a difference.

Not really, it's slimy because it should be obvious that it's the morally wrong thing to do. There's no tangible benefit to the users, only risk.

The fact that they only opt-out EU users, because regulation forces them, tells you all you need to know about the moral compass of PostHog.

This shouldn't even require regulation, but apparently expecting companies to act morally is a bloody pipe dream. Profit over morals and concerns for your costumers, apparently.

Re: Training our own AI models

#40

Post by gobdovan » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:59 PM UTC

brauhaus wrote: post #19

Every day I'm more glad about EU legislation, that's all I have to say for now

Yeah, the legislation is morally defensible on its own terms. But when you look at the full system, something funny happens: EU legislation is blocking data extraction and platform lock-in tactics that Big Tech already used to become monopolies.

And since the big platforms don't have to unwind their advantages or pay back for the methods that are now restricted and considered illegal, they can peacefully extract rents from their entrenched positions for even longer, while everyone else is prevented from using the same ladder they climbed.